If you’re sick of people being let off the hook because of their past, how do you feel about people getting off the hook because of their future?

This is nothing new, of course. We’ve all heard stories about law students, for example, doing something silly on a night out, getting arrested, going to court, and not being convicted because what they did wasn’t bad enough to damage their career prospects.

And most of the time - even if you disagree with that approach - most of the time you just shrug your shoulders and move on.

I can’t do that today, though. Because I think a judge in Wellington has got it wrong, big time, with a case that he heard yesterday.

Essentially, what’s happened is a New Zealand athlete has got off sex charges involving a 15-year-old girl because a conviction would be a “crushing blow” to his future prospects. That’s what the judge said. A conviction would be a “crushing blow”.

He pleaded guilty to having sexual connection with a teenage girl, and intentionally exposing her to indecent images and sexual communication.

The athlete met the girl online on Snapchat in 2021. Their online chat got more sexual and then this guy sent nude pictures of himself to the girl.

Further down the track, they met up, went back to his guy’s flat - where the report I’ve seen says they had “sexual contact”. They also had sex in his car later, as well.

He was 20. She was 15. But, because a conviction would harm his sporting career, he’s got-off scot-free. Being granted a discharge without conviction. He’s also got permanent name suppression.

The girl’s mother is outraged. She says she had faith in the justice system but that’s gone out the window. She’s saying today that she doesn’t feel she can tell young people to go to the police if bad things happen to them, anymore.

She says: “It tells young women that men can do whatever they like.”

And she won’t get any argument from me on that. Who could argue with that?

Maybe Judge Bruce Davidson could. Because he’s the one who thinks that this guy’s sporting career is more important than the victim in this case.

The victim, who said in her statement to the court, that the guy is a predator.

She said: “It is impossible to put into words the impact of this predator’s actions. I was 15 and he was an adult. I should be a carefree, flourishing young lady. But, instead, I am a shell of a person.” That’s just a bit of what the victim in this case said to the court.

Her mother says her daughter has been suicidal at times, as well.

But that’s nothing, apparently, compared to what a conviction would mean for this guy’s “Olympic dream”. That’s what his lawyer said in court yesterday. A conviction for his client would “put the Olympic dream aside”.

And the judge was sucked in by that. The Crown opposed it and wanted the guy convicted. But the judge fell for it. Saying a conviction would be a crushing blow and out-of-proportion to the offending.

And this is exactly the situation that the likes of David Seymour are talking about. Where all the focus is on the offender and minimising consequences for them. And making the victim play second-fiddle - be left feeling second-rate.

So what if this guy never makes it to the Olympics? So what if a conviction meant he was stigmatised for life - that was one of the lines his lawyer used in court yesterday. If he was convicted the stigma of it all would be with him for the rest of his life.

And if he was named he would be cast out of social and sporting circles and he would be crucified in the media. Again, so what?

He was the creep who preyed on this girl. He knew what he was doing. But, oh no, let’s protect his Olympic dreams and let’s make sure he doesn’t get a hard time and, God forbid, let’s not make him face the consequences of his actions.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.