Sentencing — discharge without conviction — indecent assault — vulnerable workers — flight attendant — name suppression — extreme hardship — Sentencing Act 2002, s 106 — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 200 — Hallett v Police [2018] NZHC 648 — Stevenson v Police 3 May 2004 — Rongonui v Police [2017] NZHC 688 — Rahim v R [2018] NZCA 182 — Marshall v Police [2014] NZHC 2681 — R v Robertson DC Wellington, CRI-2017-091-2687, 11 June 2018 — NB v Police [2016] NZHC 1118 — RM v Police [2012] NZHC 2080. The defendant appeared for sentencing on one charged of indecent assault. While flying as a passenger in an aeroplane, he had walked by the victim, a flight attendant, on his way to the bathroom and spanked her bottom twice. He initially denied the offending and claimed it was a result of turbulence, but subsequently pleaded guilty. At sentencing, he sought a discharge without conviction. In order to grant a discharge without conviction, a court must be satisfied that the consequences of a conviction would be all out of proportion with the gravity of the offending. The defendant had a long career in the veterinary industry and it was argued that a conviction would result in his career being destroyed and no hope of reestablishing himself at his age. This was in contrast to a young person who may not be granted a discharge without conviction as they could still choose a different career path. The Crown argued that the victim was particularly vulnerable, being a flight attendant and having no escape from the situation, and having been the victim of an offence in the past. The Judge considered similar cases put forward by counsel, concluding that the gravity of the incident was at the low end of offending, as it had been a one-off incident and over clothing. The defendant showed remorse, had written a letter of apology to the victim and agreed to participate in restorative justice. The victim had declined restorative justice, which the Judge noted she was entitled to do. Overall, the Judge considered that the consequences of a conviction would be out of proportion to the gravity of the offending and granted the defendant a discharge without conviction. There was also an application before the Court for permanent name suppression of the defendant. The Judge had to be satisfied that publication of the defendant's name would result in extreme hardship. The Judge noted that allowing publication of the defendant's name would, in effect, render the discharge without conviction nugatory. The application for final name suppression was granted. Judgment Date: 12 August 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *