Three days earlier, in a different court, his friends were all discharged without conviction on related burglary and theft charges.
You might think it would make sense that if they got off, he would too.
In fact, Bay lawyer and Mana Party president Annette Sykes said the result was appropriate, and that it would be wrong for three men to be discharged without conviction and a young man to be ostracised because he was the King's son.
Maybe so, but Paki's lawyer's argument that the consequences of a conviction would outweigh the seriousness of the crime because it would render him ineligible for the role of king is disturbing.
In sentencing Paki, Judge Philippa Cunningham said she was "driven to the conclusion" Paki would lose out on being a successor if convicted.
"There [are] only two sons and in my view it's important that the king at the appropriate time has the widest possible choice of a successor and it's important for Mr Paki, as one of those two sons, to have the potential to be a successor in time."
It's not unusual for a judge to take into account an offender's future and career prospects when sentencing, but is Paki's situation enough to warrant a discharge without conviction?
Troublemakers of all political stripes will try to make this a race issue.
It's not, and it is destructively mischievous to suggest it is.
It is about power, status, justice and the spectre of preferential treatment.
We're lucky to have the justice system we have.
There will always be decisions we agree with and those we disagree with.
Some may have more far-reaching effects than others.
