Liz Gunn fails in bid to dodge conviction for Auckland Airport assault

Former TVNZ host, anti-vaccination campaigner and failed political candidate Liz Gunn has been unsuccessful in her bid to avoid a conviction for assault.

Gunn, aka Elizabeth Jane Cooney, appeared before Judge Janey Forrest in the Manukau District Court on Tuesday for sentencing.

Her lawyer, Matthew Hague, sought a discharge without conviction after she was found guilty of assaulting an airport worker at a judge-alone trial in May.

Judge Forrest convicted and discharged Gunn at her sentencing, saying the assault was low level but the 64-year-old had shown no remorse. The consequences of a conviction were not out of proportion with the gravity of her offending, the judge concluded.

Hague asked for his client to be given leave to sit beside him on the bench in court usually reserved for the defence counsel.

Judge Forrest declined, saying Gunn's case was one of several in a sentencing list alongside other defendants who were appearing from custody.

She should be in the dock like everyone else appearing for sentencing before her that day, Judge Forrest said.

There were far fewer supporters present in court today than the dozens who turned up to each day of her trial. Present in the public gallery were her former co-accused Jonathan Clark and four other loyal supporters.

Judge Forrest found Gunn guilty of assaulting a worker at Auckland Airport following the trial in May. The judge dismissed charges of wilful trespass against Gunn and her cameraman Clark following the airport fracas nearly two years ago, and found the pair not guilty of resisting police.

She and Clark were at the Auckland Airport international arrivals terminal on February 25 last year to film the arrival of a family who had been kept in lockdown in Tokelau after refusing the Covid-19 vaccine.

An airport security worker objected to her filming and Gunn grabbed her arm.

The worker said she grabbed it with enough force to cause a pain level of five out of 10, due to a previous arm injury, a claim Gunn continues to rubbish, with her lawyer describing it as a "light touch" to get the worker's attention. Judge Forrest described Gunn's actions as "rude, overbearing and offensive".

Gunn appealed the conviction to the High Court but Justice Mathew Downs dismissed the appeal in September.

Hague said the gravity of the assault offence was at the lowest end of the spectrum. He argued a conviction was out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The legal process and publicity had been difficult for her, Hague argued.

"I think the process itself has been very difficult from the defendants," he said.

"This is not a pattern of behaviour, there are no previous charges. The very public finding of guilt has held Ms Gunn accountable," he said.

Judge Forrest said while she accepted the assault was at a low level, Gunn touching the victim's arm was not an act undertaken merely to get the airport worker's attention, as the defence continues to claim.

Hague said Gunn regularly travelled overseas and would need to declare a conviction, which could bar her from certain countries like Canada with stringent entry requirements.

Gunn, who had formerly worked as a lawyer, could find a conviction an obstacle to returning to the law, Hague said.

While the conviction could be wiped in seven years under the Clean Slate Act, that was still seven years where she would have to declare a conviction, such as when applying for insurance or a bank loan, Hague argued.

Hague also sought legal costs from the police, citing Judge Forrest's observation that police could have done more to de-escalate the situation, and the fact she was found guilty of one out of the three charges initially laid.

Police prosecutor Jerome Beveridge said it would be an "entirely novel" move to award costs to a defendant after a charge against them was proved.

Beveridge also opposed the application for a discharge without conviction.

He said the "stigma" of a conviction cited by Hague was instead the result of the facts of Gunn's offending.

Anyone with an internet connection could now find those facts for themselves, he said.

If Gunn were to apply again for a practising certificate to work as a barrister and solicitor, the Law Society would be aware of the assault and would be able to judge the facts for themselves, conviction or not, Beverdige said.

Judge Forrest said she agreed, as the prosecution did, that the assault was low level. But Gunn had never displayed remorse, the judge said.

"She has, in my view, displayed a remarkable lack of insight."

Common assault in the Summary Offences Act carries a maximum term of imprisonment of six months or a fine of up to $4000.

Judge Forrest said Gunn had not provided evidence a conviction under the Summary Offences Act would prevent travel. Gunn had filed a 42-paragraph affidavit but only a couple of short paragraphs discussed the direct or indirect consequences of a conviction, the judge said.

She agreed with Beveridge that the facts of her offending were already widely known and would be able to be considered by the Law Society if she applied to go back onto the roll of barristers and solicitors.

"Stigma is inherent in any conviction and reflects wrongdoing on the part of the defendant. Ms Gunn's actions are the subject of wide media coverage."

Judge Forrest said she was not persuaded entering a conviction would be out of all proportion to the offending, and dismissed the application.

Turning to her sentence, the judge said she took into account her previous good character, and media coverage, "some of which has been critical of Ms Gunn".

She had courted media coverage by taking a leading public role promoting misinformation about vaccines, Judge Forrest said.

But given the low level of the offending, and the lengthy legal process including Gunn spending some time being cross-examined, Judge Forrest concluded a conviction and discharge was appropriate.

She declined the costs application and said reasons would follow.

Meanwhile, there has been some turmoil inside NZ Loyal, Gunn's former political party which garnered 1.2% of the vote after campaigning on an anti-vaccination and anti-immigration platform. Gunn declined to comment to the Herald on the apparent coup.

The party was de-registered in July, but earlier this month issued a press release saying it was "under new management".

"Liz Gunn unilaterally attempted to shut down the New Zealand Loyal Political Party in July 2024, and de-registered the party with the Electoral Commission, but party members said "no", so under the rules of the party's constitution they formed a new board to keep the party alive," the release said.