A former business executive who admitted receiving commercial sex services from an underage girl has been ordered to serve 10 months’ home detention.
The man appeared for sentencing today in Auckland District Court before Judge Kathryn Maxwell. He sought a discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression.
The former executive met his 14-year-old victim on Snapchat and sent her Uber Eats in return for intimate photos and videos - one of them in her school uniform.
He later gave her a $200 gift card, then agreed to pay her $1000 cash for sexual activity.
The man arrived in court this afternoon wearing a chequered blue short-sleeved shirt, tan pants and sunglasses. He did not respond to requests for comment.
There were 14 people seated in the public gallery, and media representatives from all major New Zealand media outlets were present.
The man’s defence lawyer Graeme Newell said it was quite likely his client would “never recover” from the consequences he had already suffered and he was “unemployable” in his current industry.
“A conviction will compound the losses he has already taken into the future.”
Newell said most applications for discharges without conviction featured speculation about the potential consequences. But in this case, the man had already lost his “income, career and reputation”.
Newell submitted his client was “deeply ashamed” of what he had done and was a “low risk” of reoffending.
“He has engaged with a psychologist, he wants to continue to engage with a therapist.”
The man had also offered to make an emotional harm payment to the complainant.
Police prosecutor Wynton Richards submitted the application for a discharge without conviction did not meet the threshold.
The defendant losing his job, Richards said, was a “normal and ordinary consequence” of offending like this.
Employers, he said, should have a right to know about potential employees’ prior convictions.
Travel consequences submitted by the defendant, especially in relation to tentative plans, held little weight, Richards argued.
Victim impact statements were not read in court, but the defendant agreed to read a copy of the document, which was handed to him in the dock.
Judge Maxwell said there could be a jurisdictional issue regarding a name suppression application because the victim did not agree to the defendant keeping his anonymity.
Last year, new laws came into effect requiring that victims of sexual violence must consent to permanent name suppression for convicted offenders before a judge can grant it.
It means a court can no longer make an order for an offender’s permanent name suppression without the victim’s agreement.
Newell said if his client’s application for a discharge was accepted, the section would no longer apply.
Richards also noted the new legislation and said it would result in the defendant’s name being made public.
Should the man not be convicted, Richards believed publication of the defendant’s name was still possible.
Daniel Nilsson, representing Stuff, NZME and RNZ, said while Newell may be technically correct, he did not believe it “moved the needle” much because the new law was about the rights and autonomy of victims.
“Because there is no suggestion here that this offending didn’t occur.”
He said a discharge without conviction did not diminish the offence committed against the complainant.
“If we are not in section 106 [discharge without conviction] land, then [him losing suppression] is a done deal.”
Nilsson said he did not need to address the judge on the “extreme hardship” bar. The circumstances in this case fell significantly short of “anywhere close to that”, he submitted.
He said there was no real risk of the defendant self-harming, which was often the first and primary ground for this kind of application. Instead, here the primary ground was the man would not be employable in his preferred field.
Nilsson said the man’s offending was somewhat well-known in his field. But the potential impact of publication on his future career was speculation and did not amount to extreme hardship.
Nilsson said there was a “compelling and legitimate” public interest in this “serious and disturbing” case.
“This man did seek out [a young woman] and approached [her] first for images, then for sexual activity.”
While it was true the man didn’t know she was 14, Nilsson said the defendant was looking for a schoolgirl, noting the girl sent the defendant visual content in her school uniform.
“He believed she was 17, which is just above the age of consent.”
Judge Maxwell said the victim was 14 at the time of the offending.
Judge Maxwell said aggravating factors included the girl’s age, the impact of the abuse, the man continuing contact with her after receiving footage of her in a school uniform and his knowledge his conduct was illegal.
Mitigating factors, she said, included his offer to make amends for his offending, letters of support from family, friends and colleagues and his early guilty plea.
She said the defence submitted the level of offending was moderate, but when mitigating features were taken into account, including his donation to the Women’s Refuge and the low risk of reoffending, it was low.
The prosecution, however, said the offending was serious.
Judge Maxwell set a three-year starting point. He then received discounts for his early guilty plea, previous good character and remorse.
This brought Judge Maxwell’s starting point down to 21 months, which meant the defendant was eligible for home detention.
This led to a final sentence of 10 months’ home detention, and an order to pay $3000 to the victim for emotional harm.
Judge Maxwell said that although this charge was not specified in the new legislation related to name suppression, there could be no argument his offending was not of a sexual nature.
“From my perspective, I have no jurisdiction to make an order for permanent name suppression.”
But even if she did have jurisdiction, Judge Maxwell said she did not believe his application met the threshold for extreme hardship and it was refused.
The impact on his family was a “sad reality” of criminal offending.
“I do not doubt there will be a significant effect on them, but they deserve kindness and support.”
Newell indicated he would file an appeal against the discharge without conviction and name suppression decisions, meaning the media is unable to name the defendant.
According to an agreed summary of facts, the executive met the 14-year-old in September last year via visual-messaging app Snapchat while presenting himself as a “sugar daddy”.
Initially, he asked her to send him a photo and inquired how old she was.
“In reply, the victim sent a photo of her face. Through their communication the victim had pretended to be 17 years of age,” the summary of facts said.
The court document said she requested Uber Eats from the defendant. He agreed on the condition that she send him intimate images.
“The victim subsequently sent several intimate images and videos of herself to the defendant, resulting in the arrival of multiple Uber Eats [orders].”
The exchange continued for about three weeks, with the Uber Eats deliveries coming from various outlets.
Between September 3 and 17 last year, the girl sent the defendant 12 images and 19 short videos.
“The images and videos are recorded in her bedroom or bathroom at her home and depict the victim naked or partially naked ... sexually posing,” the summary of facts said.
“These are sexualised images including a video of the victim wearing her school uniform.”
After receiving most of the images, the executive used his credit card to buy a $200 gift card and sent it to the girl’s email.
“On Sunday 21 September 2025 at 10.40am, the defendant paid for an Uber to bring the victim to his house. Upon arrival the victim told the defendant she was 17 years old.”
The summary of facts said that the defendant paid the victim $1000 cash and told her: “You’re 17, I can’t pay you for sex so, if anyone finds out, we wanted to have sex and I just gave you money”.
At the victim’s request, the defendant then paid for an Uber to bring one of the girl’s friends to his home, the summary said.
“The victim’s friend is a 14-year-old girl and a witness in this matter. The victim and defendant went to the defendant’s bedroom where sexual activity occurred.
“A short while later the defendant paid for the victim and witness to Uber to a nearby shopping mall,” the summary of facts said.
“The victim felt disgusted because of the interaction with the defendant.”
In explanation, police said the defendant offered a prepared statement after speaking to a lawyer.
“He stated it was his belief the victim was 17 years old, and he did not enter a contract for sex.”
The pair were not known to each other before meeting on Snapchat.
The man pleaded guilty in the Auckland District Court last November to one charge of receiving commercial sex services from a person who was under 18.
The charge he admitted carries a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment.
After suggestions in November the man’s employer wished to be heard on suppression, a company spokesperson said this was incorrect and it did not plan to push for secrecy.
The man was dismissed by his employer after his guilty plea.
The executive had also faced charges of grooming for sexual conduct and indecent communication. Those charges were withdrawn by prosecutors.
Katie Harris is an Auckland-based journalist who covers issues such as sexual assault, workplace misconduct, media, crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2020.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.