Legal Research
Cases
Sunbird v Police

Sunbird v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 2689 16 September 2025

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2025-442-17

[2025] NZHC 2689

UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012

BETWEEN

SUNBIRD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 4 September 2025

Appearances:

S J Zindel for Appellant

A R Goodison for Respondent

Judgment:

16 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

[1] The appellant was convicted on seven charges of wilful trespass1 and one charge of criminal harassment,2 after a judge-alone trial in the Nelson District Court.3 For her offending, the appellant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on the criminal harassment charge and two months’ imprisonment on each trespass charge, to be served concurrently. A protection order was also imposed upon conviction.4

[2] The appellant now appeals against her convictions. She submits that Judge Snell erred in his findings that:

1      Trespass Act 1980, s 4.
2      Harassment Act 1997, s 8.
3      Police v [Sunbird] [2025] NZDC 10598 [Judgment under appeal]. To protect the privacy of family members, the name of the appellant has been anonymised.
4      Sentencing Act 2002, s 123B.

SUNBIRD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2689 [16 September 2025]

(a)she was not an occupier of the address from which she was trespassed (the Address); and

(b)her actions were sufficient to constitute harassment, having reasonably caused the complainant, referred to in this judgment as L, and the parties’ children, to fear for their safety.

[3] The appellant also seeks leave to appeal out of time. Her appeal was only filed on 4 June 2025, more than three months late.

Factual background

[4] The appellant and L married each other in 2013. They had been renting the Address as their family home since March 2021. They have two children together, aged 12 and 13. In October 2022, they separated but continued to live together at the Address until February 2023 when the appellant left for the United States to find employment. She was unsuccessful and returned to New Zealand around four months later. She did not return to live at the Address and instead lived at various other addresses within the local community, maintaining some contact with her children and L.

[5] The tenancy agreement for the Address was renewed in January 2023 for another one-year term, with both the appellant and L signing as tenants. L advised the landlord around September 2023 that the two had separated, that the appellant was no longer living at the Address, and that L wanted to take the appellant’s name off the tenancy. The landlord agreed to this, but only after the conclusion of the then current tenancy agreement at the end of February 2024.

[6] In or about November 2023, the appellant left again for the United States. L applied for a parenting order, on the basis that he wanted stability and certainty for his children. He felt that the appellant had been acting erratically and was unstable. An interim parenting order was granted in…

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 Sunbird v Police

Details

AGLC: Sunbird v Police [2025] NZHC 2689
Case: [2025] NZHC 2689
Decision Date: 16 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sunbird was convicted on seven charges of wilful trespass and one charge of criminal harassment, following a judge-alone trial in the Nelson District Court. Sunbird appeals against her convictions, arguing that the District Court judge erred in concluding that she was not an occupier of the address from which she was trespassed and that her actions were sufficient to constitute harassment. Sunbird also seeks leave to appeal out of time as her appeal was filed more than three months late.

The High Court found that the District Court judge did not err in concluding that Sunbird was not a lawful occupier of the address when the trespass notice was issued, as the variation of the tenancy agreement was valid despite not meeting the strict requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act. The High Court further found that Sunbird’s actions, including repeatedly returning to the address despite the trespass notice, interim parenting order, and bail conditions, were sufficient to cause the victim to reasonably fear for his and his children’s safety. The High Court held that Sunbird knew her harassment was likely to cause the victim to reasonably fear for their safety, and that no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed, and Sunbird’s convictions were upheld.

Orders