The officer said his life had been “plagued” for the past four years by the allegations brought against him, limiting his ability to serve.
A panel of military members found him not guilty on the third assault charge and was unable to decide on a verdict for the charge of sexual violation.
The “rough” sex incident took place at a hotel in July 2017 between him and a woman colleague and involved slapping and choking.
The military prosecutor alleged the officer slapped the woman across the face when he entered the hotel before any sexual activity began, and therefore it should be considered assault.
The sexual violation charge related to allegations the officer held the woman in place during sexual activity when it was clear she had withdrawn her consent and was trying to pull away.
The panel took three hours to decide he was not guilty of the third assault charge but were unable to decide on the sexual violation charge.
This means the sexual violation charge will go before the military prosecutor to decide if it goes back to a court-martial or is dropped.
On Friday, the officer was sentenced on the two charges of assault he had already pleaded guilty to.
The officer told the court-martial how the past four years of his life had been “plagued” by the ongoing investigation, resulting in him missing out on opportunities for deployment – something he said was hugely important for an officer’s career.
He said he lost his national security clearance, meaning he could not be deployed overseas for certain operations, despite completing all the required tests and training to do so.
He’d had to watch his peers, who he trained with, come back from deployment, some describing it as the “highlight” of their career.
The officer said the investigation and delayed court-martial process had taken a toll on his mental health, including not being able to eat at times to over-eating, feeling hopeless and deeply unhappy, and losing faith in the justice system.
At the time of the offending, the officer said he was young and acted “disgracefully”.
He offered an apology to the victim, who was watching the proceeding over audio-visual link.
“I rightly called myself a coward and I know now that my actions were wrong.
“I’m so sorry for how I treated you... I can’t tell you how sorry I am for raising my hands at you.”
He had struggled to find job satisfaction because of the uncertainty of his future in the army but continued for the soldiers.
“I love my soldiers and I do what I do for them.”
The officer’s fiancee also spoke in court about how “incredibly hard” the investigation had been for both of them, and said her love and support for him had remained unwavering throughout the process.
She said despite the toll the process had taken on the officer, he still demonstrated how a leader should lead.
If he were to be dismissed from his duties it would “destroy his childhood dream” of having a military career, she said.
The officer had warned her the court-martial process would be difficult and if she wanted to leave, he would understand.
“I never once thought about leaving.”
She said it was her wish for her fiancé to retain his employment and asked that the military members have some compassion when sentencing him.
The court also heard from two of the accused’s commanding officers, who both spoke highly of his hard-working nature and ability to lead.
One said the officer had been honest and open about the investigation, knowing that it would limit his opportunities within the force. He said he would eagerly serve with him again.
One of the commanding officers said he nominated the officer for an award but due to the investigation, he could not receive this.
He also said when a deployment opportunity came up the officer was his first choice, but again this wasn’t possible.
Military Prosecutor John Whitcombe asked the panel to take into account the seriousness of the two assault charges which breached the core values of the New Zealand Defense Force (NZDF), particularly courage, comradeship and integrity.
Whitcombe said while the offences were somewhat minor a reduction in rank would be an appropriate starting point.
The officer’s lawyer Elizabeth Bulger said her client was entitled to a discount for his guilty pleas which came at an early stage as well as the officer’s age during the time of offending and significant delay of the court-martial process.
She said the officer had spent most of his army career “undeployable and unpromotable” which had weighed heavily on him.
Bulger asked the military panel to consider imposing a sentence of a fine that would go toward the victim.
In deciding the penalty, Judge Kevin Riordan and the panel took into account the officer’s age during the offending, his remorse, and the lengthy delay of the court-martial process.
“We are of the view that you are not the same person now that you were then,” the judge told the officer.
The officer was ordered to make a voluntary payment of $500 to a charity that deals with the effects of violence.
He was to return to his duties but was warned if he commits an offence within the next year, the discounts would no longer be available and he would be dealt with by the commanding officer.
Meanwhile, the charge of sexual violation will be dealt with by the military prosecutor.
