"In my experience as counsel regularly appearing before the courts, judges properly apply the relevant legal test for a discharge and do so with the benefit of having before them evidence of the consequences of a conviction on the applicant seeking a discharge," he said in an email to NZME. News Service.
"That evidence is usually by way of sworn affidavit evidence.
"It is critically examined and the judge does need to be satisfied that they have before them sufficient evidence to find there are the direct and indirect consequences raised.
"In my experience judges properly and fully analyse any evidence filed and going to the consequences of a conviction."
Such decisions to discharge without conviction were "not made simply on the basis of submissions from counsel", he said, but by reference to the evidence filed.
There was no difference between a famous or high profile person, and anybody else asking for such a decision before the courts, he said.
"All applicants for a discharge without conviction are assessed by the presiding judge according to the same procedure and legal test."
After yesterday's decision, University of Auckland law professor Bill Hodge said he was "concerned" to see a run of cases where athletes were discharged without conviction, on the basis it would affect their employment and their ability to travel or compete in international competitions.
"I'm thinking that judges should look a bit more critically at that issue ... because it's something the defence counsel will, of course, automatically raise, and it is not available if you are a plumber, you're working on a building site, you're a blue-collared worker, or a shop assistant," he said.
"It's just a bit concerning that it seems to be setting up a two-tier system of justice, where one class of people get one form of justice, and a different class of people get a different form."
Mr Wicks said he disagreed with Professor Hodge and his view.
