The man, who has interim name suppression and two prior convictions for domestic violence, is appealing an earlier decision not to grant him name suppression or a discharge without conviction for the new offending.
Gray told the High Court at Auckland the appeal centred around three critical matters that were a result of “erroneous” reasoning or a lack of information from the defence.
She said Judge Lance erred in his assessment of the offending as low to moderate, and the appellant argued it was of a low level.
The next critical matter Gray raised was the judge’s view that the consequences of a conviction were low to moderate.
She submitted it was wrong for him to conclude that the loss of primary income and employment were only linked to him being charged.
If the convictions remain, it could impact his ability to travel as a musician, she said.
While he has been able to travel to Europe and Australia with his historic convictions, affidavits she filed from two members of the music industry said the new convictions would make overseas touring harder.
She said one of the submissions claimed that if he was named, the public would not want to buy recordings or tickets from someone facing accusations, “truthful or not”.
The third critical matter that she alleged was made in error was Judge Lance’s finding that the test for extreme hardship was not met.
In Gray’s submission, not being able to make ends meet and losing his career would clearly be extreme hardship.
Gray told the court the affidavits filed in support of his appeal were unequivocal. “It will be the end of his career”.
Crown prosecutor Fiona Culliney said the man came before the court with two separate domestic violence convictions, and confirmed he was found guilty of domestic violence in 2001.
Now, he was seeking to “escape conviction” for his recent offending and have his name suppressed.
She said this case did not meet the threshold for a discharge without conviction and nor did she believe there was a case for his name to be suppressed.
“This relationship was toxic on both sides, and His Honour accepted the defence to some degree that this was excessive self-defence.”
Culliney said the gravity of the man’s offending was appropriately assessed by the judge and he lost his main job prior to the convictions.
His previous convictions had not impeded his travel, she said.
Culliney opposed his name suppression appeal in the interests of open justice.
The justices reserved their decision.
The case related to alleged interactions and assaults between him and his ex-partner in late 2022 and late 2023.
The prosecution argued the man physically and psychologically abused the complainant, whereas the defence said the woman, aged 28, initiated the aggression and he only used force in self-defence.
At the time, Judge Lance said while he had sympathy for the man, who is in his 50s, he did not believe the consequences of a conviction were out of proportion.
The man submitted he had suffered a significant financial impact from the charges.
“I’m not convinced that there are further consequences that occur on top of what has already happened,” Judge Lance said at the time.
The judge accepted that the offending occurred in the context of what the defence described as a “toxic relationship” and it certainly wasn’t “one-way traffic”.
He said the man had been acquitted of nine of the 11 charges, including the more serious allegations.
“I do think that more than likely the jury convicted you on the basis that the actions were excessive self-defence.”
In a victim impact statement, read by Judge Lance, the woman said she had suffered injuries including to her arm and head.
She said she had been left with “significant emotional distress” as a result and had missed days at work.
Katie Harris is an Auckland-based journalist who covers social issues including sexual assault, workplace misconduct, media, crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2020.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
