Sinton v The King - [2024] NZHC 3627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2024-483-13

[2024] NZHC 3627

BETWEEN
GUY (CRYSTAL) EDWARD SINTON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 13 November 2024

Appearances:

R M Gould for Appellant

O A Jessop Boivin and P D Marshall for Respondent

Judgment:

2 December 2024

Reissued:

16 April 2025

REDACTED JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] On 3 September 2024, in the Whanganui District Court, Judge Marinovich convicted Ms Sinton of a representative charge of breaching of a protection order and sentenced her to appear if called upon within six months.1 On appeal, Ms Sinton seeks a discharge without conviction. The Crown says the appeal should be dismissed.

[2] The appeal is brought out of time by two days. In the circumstances, the Crown does not oppose an extension of time being granted for the appeal to be heard and accordingly an extension of time is granted.

[3]For the reasons below, I consider that Ms Sinton’s appeal should be dismissed.

1 R v Sinton [2024] NZDC 25707. Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(a) and 112(1)(a): maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

SINTON v R [2024] NZHC 3627 [2 December 2024]

The offending

[4] Ms Sinton and the complainant had been in a relationship for over 13 years when their relationship ended in late 2020. Ms Sinton and the complainant have a child together.

[5] On 13 February 2024, a temporary protection order was issued against Ms Sinton.

[6] As part of arranging care for their child, on 15 April 2024, Ms Sinton and the complainant started using AppClose which is designed as a co-parenting application for separated parents to communicate and inform one another about events and relevant information surrounding their child. On 22 April 2024, the complainant’s lawyer emailed Ms Sinton outlining that the purpose of AppClose was for matters related to their child only.

[7] Between 21 April and 10 May 2024, Ms Sinton messaged the complainant approximately 25 times. A number of the messages sent to the complainant outlined the illness that Ms Sinton had and the treatment she received whilst in police custody. In another message, Ms Sinton informed the complainant that Ms Sinton had successfully defended her active breach of protection order charge.

[8] Ms Sinton and the complainant had an agreement that a third party would pick up and drop off their dogs on a weekly basis. On 3 May 2024, Ms Sinton was unable to organise anyone to take the dogs to the complainant’s address. Ms Sinton drove to the complainant’s address, and let the dogs run up the driveway to the complainant’s car. The complainant heard the dogs barking and went to retrieve them. When the complainant was at her car, she looked down the driveway and saw Ms Sinton looking down the driveway, before leaving shortly after. The complainant messaged Ms Sinton to say she did not want Ms Sinton to come to her house. Ms Sinton did not reply.

[9]On 10 May…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sinton v The King

Details

AGLC: Sinton v The King [2024] NZHC 3627
Case: [2024] NZHC 3627
Decision Date: 2 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Guy (Crystal) Edward Sinton appealed against his conviction and sentence for breaching a protection order. The District Court had convicted Sinton and ordered him to appear if called upon within six months. Sinton sought a discharge without conviction, arguing that the consequences of the conviction were disproportionate to the gravity of his offending. The Crown opposed the appeal, contending that a discharge without conviction was not warranted.

The court first considered the jurisdiction to hear the appeal, noting that an appeal against a refusal to grant a discharge without conviction is a composite appeal against conviction and sentence. The court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, even though no application for a discharge without conviction was made at first instance, due to a change of circumstances.

The court then assessed whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred by considering the gravity of the offending and the direct and indirect consequences of conviction. The court found that while the offending was at the lower end of seriousness, the persistent nature of the breaches and the stress caused to the complainant weighed against Sinton. Regarding the consequences, the court was not persuaded that the conviction would have a significant impact on Sinton's employment prospects, as there was insufficient evidence to support such a claim.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. Therefore, no miscarriage of justice had occurred, and the appeal was dismissed.

Final orders: The appeal is dismissed.

Orders