Former Auckland police officer Matthew Rogers has pleaded guilty to possessing objectionable publications but is asking the court to discharge him without conviction. His application places the consequences for his future employment against the seriousness of the offending and the higher standards the public expects from those entrusted to enforce the law
Report by eLocal
A former Auckland police officer with nearly four decades of service is seeking to avoid a criminal conviction after pleading guilty to possessing objectionable publications, in a case that raises important questions about the responsibilities of police officers, the treatment of admitted offending and the consequences of criminal convictions.
According to RNZ court reporting by Lucy Xia, Matthew Rogers appeared before Judge Clare Bennett at the Manukau District Court on Monday, where his lawyer, Todd Simmonds KC, sought a discharge without conviction.
The application follows an internal police review undertaken in October 2025 after the resignation of former Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming. That review led to charges against three police staff, including Rogers.
The proceedings have exposed an uncomfortable issue for New Zealand Police: what happens when an officer responsible for upholding the law admits offending involving objectionable material, and how should a court balance that officer's previous service against the nature of the offence?
What the Court Heard
Court documents described in RNZ's report show that between August 2023 and October 2025, Rogers used a police-issued device to search for pornographic and sexualised material.
The searches included the term "nude teen". Nine images viewed by Rogers matched material previously classified as Category 2B Child Sexual Abuse Material.
These details are significant. The case concerns admitted offending involving objectionable publications, not merely a breach of workplace computer-use rules.
Rogers' lawyer did not dispute that the offending was serious. Instead, he asked the court to consider its scale and circumstances when determining the appropriate outcome.
Simmonds argued that the number of images involved was comparatively limited and that the images had not been downloaded. He also distinguished Rogers' offending from the separate McSkimming case, which involved thousands of objectionable images.
That comparison formed part of the defence argument. It does not remove the seriousness of Rogers' admitted offending, nor does it establish that the two cases should receive the same or different sentences.
The defence also acknowledged aggravating circumstances, including a degree of premeditation reflected in some of the search terms used.
Nearly Four Decades of Service and the Employment Question
A central argument advanced by Rogers' lawyer concerned the potential consequences of a conviction for his future employment.
Simmonds told the court that Rogers had resigned from the police several months earlier after almost 40 years of service.
He argued that a criminal conviction would materially affect Rogers' ability to obtain future employment, particularly where job applications required disclosure of previous convictions.
However, when Judge Bennett asked what type of employment Rogers intended to pursue, the defence could not identify a specific occupation or opportunity.
Police prosecutor Kristy Li challenged the adequacy of the employment argument, saying evidence was needed to establish how a conviction would affect Rogers' prospects.
She sought an adjournment so that the relevant material could be provided.
Judge Bennett adjourned sentencing until November. Rogers was remanded at large.
The adjournment is important because the court has not yet determined whether the claimed employment consequences justify a discharge without conviction.
What New Zealand Law Actually Requires
A discharge without conviction is a lawful sentencing outcome under the Sentencing Act 2002.
Section 106 allows a court, in eligible cases, to discharge an offender who has pleaded guilty or been found guilty without entering a conviction.
But the power is subject to an important statutory safeguard.
Under section 107, the court must be satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.
That is a more demanding test than simply establishing that a conviction would be inconvenient, embarrassing or damaging to employment prospects.
The court must assess the gravity of the offending and the consequences of conviction before deciding whether the statutory threshold has been met.
Previous good character, remorse, an early guilty plea and the circumstances of the offending may also be relevant to sentencing. They do not automatically establish entitlement to a discharge without conviction.
The question before Judge Bennett is therefore not whether Rogers has served the community for many years. It is whether the consequences of a conviction would be disproportionate to the seriousness of his admitted offending.
The Discounts Sought by the Defence
Alongside the application for discharge without conviction, Simmonds advanced arguments for reductions from the prosecution's proposed sentencing starting point.
RNZ reported that the prosecution sought a starting point of between 12 and 18 months.
The defence proposed a 25 percent reduction for Rogers' early guilty plea, together with further reductions reflecting his previous service, character and claimed remorse.
In total, the defence sought a 40 percent discount.
These are submissions made on Rogers' behalf, not reductions already granted by the court.
The distinction matters because the final sentencing decision remains outstanding.
A Wider Question for New Zealand Police
The case has implications extending beyond the personal circumstances of one former officer.
Police officers exercise substantial powers on behalf of the public. They investigate offences, gather evidence, make arrests and participate in the criminal justice process.
Those responsibilities depend upon public confidence that the law will be applied consistently and that officers themselves remain accountable when they breach it.
Rogers' case also raises a separate institutional question concerning the use and oversight of police-issued technology.
The court material described searches conducted over a period exceeding two years, from August 2023 until October 2025.
That timeline invites scrutiny of the monitoring arrangements that existed during the relevant period, including whether inappropriate searches could have been detected earlier.
The available reporting does not establish what monitoring systems were operating, whether alerts were generated or whether any warnings were overlooked. Those matters would require further evidence from Police.
Nevertheless, the duration of the conduct is a legitimate reason to examine the effectiveness of internal safeguards.
The fact that the offending came to light following a wider review also raises questions about whether existing routine controls were sufficient.
Those questions should not be confused with a finding of institutional misconduct. They remain matters for investigation and explanation.
The McSkimming Connection
Rogers was one of three police staff charged following a rapid review initiated after the resignation of former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming.
RNZ reported that child sexual exploitation and bestiality material had been discovered on McSkimming's work devices.
The circumstances of the individual cases differ, and the allegations and evidence concerning one person should not automatically be attributed to another.
What connects them is the broader issue of how Police identifies, investigates and responds to potentially criminal conduct involving its own personnel.
An organisation entrusted with investigating offending in the wider community must be able to demonstrate that its internal accountability processes are credible, consistent and independent of rank or length of service.
The public interest lies not only in the outcome of individual prosecutions but also in whether the systems intended to prevent and detect misconduct are functioning effectively.
Will This in Fact Make New Zealand Stronger?
Will this in fact make New Zealand stronger? That question applies to the institutional response as much as it does to the eventual court decision.
A stronger criminal justice system is one in which the legal rights of every defendant are respected, evidence is tested fairly and sentencing decisions follow the law.
It is also one in which public officials are not insulated from accountability simply because they have held positions of authority or accumulated years of service.
The two principles are not contradictory.
Rogers is entitled to make an application under the Sentencing Act, and the court is obliged to consider it according to the statutory criteria.
Equally, the public is entitled to expect that admitted offending involving child sexual abuse material will be treated with appropriate seriousness.
The consequences for an offender's future employment may be relevant, but they must be weighed against the gravity of the offence rather than considered in isolation.
The eventual decision will be made by Judge Bennett, not by Police, the defence or public opinion.
A Decision Still to Come
The sentencing hearing has been adjourned until November to allow further consideration of the employment consequences advanced by the defence.
At this stage, Rogers has pleaded guilty, but his application for discharge without conviction has not been decided.
The court must still consider the defence submissions, the prosecution's position and the statutory requirements governing the application.
For the wider public, the case provides an opportunity to examine two connected questions: whether the criminal justice system applies its standards consistently, and whether Police has sufficiently robust systems to identify inappropriate conduct involving its own staff.
Both questions matter to the credibility of institutions that exercise considerable power over New Zealanders.
The final judgment will determine Rogers' legal outcome. The broader questions of oversight, accountability and public confidence will remain important regardless of that decision.
Sources