If he's found guilty, I don't understand how he doesn't have a conviction.
Part of my issue is the recency effect. Would I hire him soon after his act of violence and conviction? Nope. A good few years afterwards and he has demonstrated learning and consistency of behavior? Yeah, likelier.
But in this situation? Not so much
RE the bolded bit.
A 'discharge without conviction' is a sentence that a judge in NZ can hand down in criminal cases. It is often described (in my circles at least) as a s106 order because that is the relevant section of the Sentencing Act. It is legally treated the same as an acquittal.
The jurisidiction to make a s106 order is found in s107 of the Sentencing Act, which reads:
[LAWS]
107 Guidance for discharge without conviction
The court must not discharge an offender without conviction unless the court is
satisfied that the direct and indirect
consequences of a conviction would be out
of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.
[/LAWS] (
emphasis added)
The point is that where a person has committed an offence, but were to receive a conviction for said offence, the consequences of this conviction would be so detrimental to the person compared to how bad the offence was, the judge can elect to convict, but then remove that conviction from the record. A person is often still sentenced and punished under a s106 order (like a fine, community service and/or reparation) but they do not get a criminal record.
The section has various uses. It is used most often where someone's career depends upon that person not having a conviction, and it is felt that to deprive that person of their career is a disproportionate penalty compared to what they did. All sorts of people routinely get s106 orders, such as nurses, teachers, bus drivers, students etc. By definition you can only get it for minor offences. A criticism made of it is that it is used by the rich and famous to get off offences, but I believe that is perception rather than reality.
By discharging Reece without conviction the judge effectively said that the consequences of a conviction for DV (likely never playing rugby anywhere again) is too greater sentence for what was quite a minor offence in the scheme of things.
For example, I had a client (in another jurisdiction) who got convicted for assault (throwing a lunchbox at his then partner). He successfully argued that while he admitted he had thrown the lunchbox, to convict him and make him lose his job was a disproportionate punishment. I note that he still had to pay a fine and had the mandatory protection order put against him - he was punished commensurate to his offence and no more. He did not have a particularly glamorous job.
Does the USA not have similar laws?
