A woman who came to Queenstown for her trial for assault is facing two new charges after allegedly committing another assault on the morning of the trial.
The Aucklander was found guilty on Tuesday of assaulting her ex-boyfriend at the Hilton hotel in December.
However, the 35-year-old can’t be named after she indicated she would appeal Judge Russell Walker’s decision and his refusal to grant her permanent name suppression.
Walker also turned down her application for interim name suppression in relation to the new charges, for assault and intentional damage.
Through her lawyer, Tanya Surrey, the woman indicated she would also appeal that decision.
She has three weeks to file the appeals in the High Court at Invercargill.
Although the police summary of facts relating to the new charges is not yet available, the events at the Hilton early on December 20 were thrashed out in detail at the woman’s judge-alone trial on Tuesday.
A hotel receptionist gave evidence a male guest came to check-out about 1.30am, but was followed by the defendant, who told the man he couldn’t leave because he hadn’t paid for damage to the room.
When he went to the room with the pair, he found it ‘‘very messy’’ but undamaged.
The man told him he had been ‘‘clawed’’ by the defendant.
The duty manager that night told the court she called to the room because of a ‘‘heated’’ argument between the couple.
During a difficult exchange with the defendant, who repeatedly spoke over her, filmed her with her phone and was intoxicated and antagonistic, she became aware ‘‘something else was going on’’.
The defendant was making threatening comments to the man, and she noticed scratch marks on his arm.
‘‘It was quite clear he was hurt and intimidated.’’
Sergeant Blair Duffy said he went to the hotel with two cops about 2.15am after a report of a domestic harm incident.
He found the defendant ‘‘uncooperative and evasive’’, and abusive towards hotel staff as she demanded a refund.
The room was in a state of ‘‘disarray’’, the bed tipped over and items scattered on the floor.
He took a signed statement from the complainant, who said the defendant had tried to hit his head about 20 times, had struck him with a phone handset, sprayed his face with deodorant, and thrown items at him.
He took photos of scratches on the man’s lower left arm and marks on his head.
Giving evidence, the man said the defendant was his ex at the time of the incident.
While drinking together in their room, they started arguing and had a ‘‘scuffle’’, but he denied being assaulted.
His statement to police had been inaccurate because it was late and he was ‘‘tired and shocked’’ by what had happened.
He thought police had only come to calm down the situation, and never expected his statement to lead to a charge.
‘‘Maybe I was rambling a bit, about previous incidents and the drama in the relationship.’’
A sworn affidavit he had given in February was the correct version of events, he said.
Under cross-examination by prosecuting sergeant Ian Collin, he said he couldn’t recall telling police he had been assaulted, and what he
had described might’ve occurred during earlier incidents between the couple.
Collin said that was ‘‘stretching the imagination’’.
‘‘You’ve chosen to come along today to completely minimise, to the point of misleading, what happened on December 20.’’
Walker said it was clear the defendant had been ‘‘aggressive and belligerent’’ to hotel staff and the police, and the man was now trying to minimise the incident.
He considered the February affidavit to be a ‘‘post-event rationalisation’’, instigated by the defendant, which was aimed at getting the charge
dropped.
The man’s claim he couldn’t recall what had happened ‘‘stretched credibility’’, whereas Duffy’s evidence was significantly more credible.
He considered the scratches on the man’s arms had been caused by the defendant, and found her guilty of assault in a family relationship.
He sentenced her to 12 months’ supervision to enable assessment and treatment for alcohol and anger management issues, and remanded her on bail until July in relation to the new charges of assault and intentional damage.
