Former High Court Judge Simon Moore, Marie Dyhrberg KC, retired University of Auckland law professor Bill Hodge, and sexual violence campaigner Louise Nicholas. Photo / Katie Harris
If a wealthy sex offender donates a large amount of money to charity, should they be eligible for a reduced prison sentence?
A top King’s Counsel says it’s not unusual for a court to award a sentence discount for reparation or compensation.
Does that put a rich criminal in a better position at sentencing than someone with less money?
“Yes, and that’s just life. That is just the way it is,” Marie Dyhrberg, KC, told the Herald.
“It’s unfortunate that not everyone has the same advantages, but you cannot penalise someone when the law says you can get a discount if you can do A,B, C or D,” said Dyhrberg, who specialises in criminal defence law.
Dyhrberg’s comments come after a man from a wealthy family convicted of having “extreme” child abuse material received a 3% sentence discount for a $50,400 charity donation.
A discount is a reduction to the sentence that a judge would otherwise impose for factors that include remorse, a guilty plea, or previous good character.
Sexual violence campaigner Louise Nicholas said she believed the man had “paid his way” to a shorter sentence.
“People with money and power literally make their way out of paying for what they’ve been charged for.
“What he downloaded, what he was watching, he’s obviously a very sick man and he needs a hell of a lot of help. But at the end of the day ... you should be treated like everybody else going through the criminal justice system.”
Remorse, she said, came from the heart.
Retired University of Auckland law professor Bill Hodge said the discount for the donation appeared to be incongruent with the Sentencing Act.
“There is nothing there that says if you pay money, you get a further little discount.”
He believed the decision to grant the discount for the payment, made just days before the man’s scheduled sentencing, brought the criminal justice system into disrepute and was effectively “double dipping” in terms of remorse.
Dyhrberg, who didn’t represent the man, said the discount was not a “double-dip”, but could be seen as contributing to his penalty.
“He’s penalised by losing money, a lot of money, so that’s something that affects him. He’s out of pocket.”
Expanding on whether being rich allowed defendants access to sentence discounts, Dyhrberg said: “Some people might not be able to go into rehabilitation because they can’t take time off work, other people don’t have family support. And it can be seen as someone buying an added advantage from others.”
She said some people had no supporters in court, others had a dozen. Some had wonderful personal references and were granted discounts for them, while others didn’t.
Auckland District Court Judge Maria Pecotic noted when sentencing the man that the timing of the payments could be seen as an attempt to receive a reduction.
However, she was prepared to consider it from the man’s lawyer’s perspective, which was that it was an expression of remorse. She applied a further 3% discount to his sentence.
This was on top of the 5% he had already been granted for remorse, 25% for guilty plea, 10% for rehabilitation, 5% for previous good character, and 8% for mental health factors.
Had the additional discount been included in the 5% for remorse, Hodge believed it would be in line with the Sentencing Act.
“It looks like [he] purchased a further discount by paying money suspiciously close [to his scheduled sentencing].”
Hodge said the man’s lawyer, Emma Priest, was a very good defence counsel.
“I’d get her if I was in big trouble.”
Despite the sentence drop for the donation, Hodge did not believe the Crown would appeal the reduction, as the man was still sentenced to imprisonment.
“The fact there was a jail sentence at the end softens my outrage.”
The prosecution confirmed to the Herald that at this stage, there were no plans to appeal the sentence. However, it also confirmed an appeal had now been filed against the man being granted permanent name suppression.
Former High Court judge Simon Moore, KC, said the Sentencing Act mandated judges to take into account offers to make amends.
“In some ways this could be equated to that,” he said, stressing that he was speaking generally as he had not read the full sentencing decision.
Moore said whether a judge decided to give a credit was up to them, but in the grand scheme of things 3% was “pretty small” compared to other discounts.
“The real issue is whether the overall sentence taken as a whole properly reflected the culpability. If it did then the sentence fits within the available range. If not it could be appealed on the grounds it was manifestly inadequate.
“That is a matter for the prosecuting authority.”
The man was charged after Customs seized devices containing disturbing content during a search warrant at the man’s address in 2024.
The court summary of facts said the files included images of girls performing a variety of sexual acts on men.
Some of what was captured could be described as involving sadistic sexual activity.
More than 11,000 unique objectionable publications were found depicting the sexual exploitation of children, who ranged in age from toddlers through to prepubescent girls. One of the files contained bestiality.
The man was sentenced last month on two charges, knowingly possessing thousands of objectionable material files and knowingly importing the content.
The donations were made on June 9, 2025, and he had been due for sentencing on June 13. However, that hearing was adjourned that day until the following month.
Judge Pecotic wrote in sentencing notes, provided to the Herald, that the charities he donated to would benefit, and the payment could be regarded as supporting his expressions of remorse.
“On the other hand, the timing of the payment of the donations being so close to the day of your last sentencing date could be seen as an attempt to receive a reduction to an otherwise appropriate sentence,” she said.
Priest had emphasised this was not her client’s intention in making the donation.
“She submits that the suggestion of a donation was something that came from her and, in her submission, it is linked to show [the man’s] expression of remorse,” the judge wrote.
“I am prepared to consider it from that point of view and, therefore, I will allow a further discount to reflect the donations.”
Judge Pecotic gave the man a starting point of five and a half years’ imprisonment and said there were no mitigating features to his offending.
The discounts granted led to an overall discount of 56%. He was sentenced to two years and five months’ imprisonment.
The man was automatically placed on the child sex offenders register.
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.