More details have been released by the courts about the assault charge laid against axed Married At First Sight contestant Chris Mansfield in 2009.
The Herald on Sunday revealed yesterday Mansfield was charged with assault but was granted diversion.
Today court documents have been provided to the Herald which give more insight into the alleged offence.
The documents allege that on November 9, 2009 Mansfield assaulted a female.
He was also charged with damaging her sunglasses.
The charge came six months after he was arrested in the United States for assaulting his then-partner.
Mansfield, 39, was due to appear on the third season of MediaWorks reality show Married At First Sight which aired on Three last night.
His removal came after his ex Candace Casady, 32, claimed he "almost killed me a couple of times [through] strangling" before he was arrested on a domestic violence charge on May 4, 2009.
Mansfield pleaded not guilty and was released on bail but the Herald on Sunday understands that after missing a second pre-trial hearing on June 15, he was taken into custody by US immigration services and sent home to New Zealand.
He appeared in the Christchurch District Court on a charge of male assaults female about six months later.
At his third appearance in court on December 7, 2009 police agreed to consider diversion for Mansfield.
That was granted later that month and the conditions for diversion were completed, resulting in police withdrawing the charge on February 16, 2010.
Mansfield has no formal convictions.
Diversion is a scheme that gives a second chance to "first-time offenders who commit minor offences".
It is run by the police prosecution service and eligible offenders are effectively dealt with outside court and avoid a formal prosecution.
Offences like assault are not usually considered for diversion.
However, in some cases the offence or offender may be eligible for the scheme.
The Herald has chosen not to reveal the identity of the woman Mansfield was charged with assaulting.
She has been approached for comment, and has previously declined to speak about his legal and television issues.
Mansfield has not responded to requests for comment by the Herald on multiple platforms this week.
MediaWorks refused to comment further about his participation in and removal from the show.
"However, I do want to point out that diversion does not come up on Ministry of Justice criminal conviction histories," spokeswoman Rose Swale said last week.
A criminal record covers criminal and traffic offences.
But it does not include information about police diversion, Youth Court charges, overseas or court martial/military convictions, charges yet to reach court, charges a person was not convicted of, charges a person was found not guilty of, infringements such as parking tickets, and demerit point or driver licence suspension information.
On-screen bride urges Kiwis to boycott reality show
was Auckland business owner and sales manager Aimee Collins, 34.
Collins has told the Herald she is limited in what she can say about MAFS and Mansfield due to her contract with MediaWorks.
"Just because of legal advice I can't ... I will share later on, but right now I can't," she explained.
As the first episode of MAFS aired last night Collins took to social media to urge people not to watch the controversial series.
"A lot of you have been asking if I'm watching tonight. The answer is no," she wrote on Instagram.
"I ask you to consider this before watching as well... Take a stand against domestic violence New Zealand, it's not okay."
Collins said that in her opinion MediaWorks and Warner Bros "did not do their due diligence".
"It took a journalist just four days to find out about my on-screen husband's alleged domestic abuse history.
"I'm horrified I was put in this situation.
"Please consider this if you're a fan of the show."
Collins said there were "so many ways" the broadcaster could have sourced the relevant information about Mansfield before accepting him on to the show.
She labelled the show a "disaster".
Diversion - what is it and who gets it?
Under the police diversion scheme - an alternative to a full, formal prosecution process - offenders are dealt with "out of court".
They must "complete agreed conditions" set by police by a specified date.
A typical diversion agreement can include a combination of apologising to a victim and paying reparation, attending counselling, education programmes, addiction or "personal issues" treatment, community service and restorative justice.
If conditions are met, police can then seek to have the charge withdrawn.
If diversion is granted, a conviction is not entered.
According to police policy, there are four purposes for diversion:
• to address offending behaviour that has resulted in charges
• to balance the needs of victims, the offender and their communities
• to give offenders an opportunity to avoid conviction
• to reduce reoffending.
"Diversion enables eligible offenders to complete diversion activities within a given timeframe to avoid both a full prosecution and the possibility of receiving a conviction," police explain on their website.
"This means that judicial time is able to be reserved for more serious offences and offenders."
In most cases violent offences are not eligible for diversion.
But police said there were "no hard and fast rules" on diversion categories.
"For every individual circumstance there are different aggravating and mitigating factors that might make someone eligible or ineligible for diversion," their policy states.
While diversion does not show up on a person's criminal record, it may be revealed in a police check.
"If you are vetted by the police vetting service for a role involving the care and protection of children or the vulnerable, or for any other purpose that fits the criteria for police vetting, details of the diversion matter may be released if they are considered relevant to the role for which you are being checked," the police website confirmed.