A New Zealand blogger's convictions for harassing several people, including a former parliamentarian, and breaching suppression in a high-profile court case will stand.
But Dermot Nottingham will not see the inside of a prison cell despite the Crown seeking to denounce and deter "an egregious breach of non-publication orders and malicious and misogynistic attacks on members of the public".
In one instance he sent one of his victims a scene from the Quentin Tarantino film Pulp Fiction, which showed a person being shot in the head.
A jury found Nottingham guilty of five criminal harassment charges and two breaches of court suppression orders last year.
But he claims the case against him is "false" and the police had "fabricated" evidence to "fit him up".
Nottingham, who represented himself, had also called former Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater to give evidence and Nottingham argued at his trial that his "articles" were covered by freedom of expression rights.
He was ordered to serve 12 months' home detention and complete 100 hours of community work - but challenged his sentence and convictions in the Court of Appeal last month.
The Solicitor-General also appealed Nottingham's sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate and wanted a term of two years and 10 months' imprisonment.
Last week the Court of Appeal released its decision.
It dismissed Nottingham's appeals and allowed the Crowns, but ordered a new home detention sentence - not prison.
The suppression orders Nottingham breached were for the Stephen Dudley manslaughter case.
He named and published photos of the two teenage defendants - who have permanent name suppression - on his blog.
The Herald has chosen not to publish the name of the blog, as much of the offending material remains online.
Auckland's Crown Solicitor Brian Dickey said at Nottingham's sentencing the breaches were an "attack on the High Court".
Judge Jonathan Down also categorised the breaches as "blatant and contemptuous" and noted Nottingham showed no remorse.
As a result of Nottingham's disregard for the court orders, police began investigating the blog site and found "several campaigns of harassment".
Nottingham was ordering, or himself conducting, online attacks on business people, civil servants and a former member of Parliament.
Photos were taken of them and their homes, while allegations were published online falsely claiming drug abuse and corruption.
"The common denominator between them all was that they had at some stage crossed Mr Nottingham's path in circumstances he took issue with," the Court of Appeal decision reads.
"It was common for Mr Nottingham to ensure that articles were drawn to his complainants' attention by providing them with the electronic links."
All of Nottingham's harassment victims have been granted permanent name suppression.
The Crown also alleged various other acts of harassment, including "following", and in one case initiating a private prosecution.
During his appeal, Nottingham argued his convictions should be quashed because the blog site was based overseas.
"You cannot be a party to a crime that never occurred in an overseas jurisdiction," he said.
However, in his summing-up at the trial, Judge Down said: "Even if the main parts of a crime are committed abroad, if you do something to further that crime, and you have done it in New Zealand, that crime, the whole thing can be prosecuted in New Zealand."
The Court of Appeal judges, Justice John Wild, Justice Susan Thomas and Justice Matthew Muir, agreed.
"We identify no error in that direction," they said.
"It did not involve any assumption of extra-territorial jurisdiction. It stated what we regard as a now uncontentious proposition: that a blog available to New Zealand internet users is regarded as published in New Zealand."
Nottingham also claimed the Crown failed to establish he was either the publisher of the material or a party to its publication.
He said the Crown lacked the "smoking gun" or "electronic footprint" which showed the offending material stemmed from him.
Evidence from a detective, he claimed, was also "fabricated and prejudicial".
Nottingham called former Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater to give evidence and refute what the detective said about the absence of a trace.
Slater's "unambiguous position" was it was impossible to do anything online which did not leave "footprints everywhere", the Court of Appeal decision reads.
Despite this, the Court of Appeal sided with the Crown's position that the circumstantial evidence relied on was "very strong, if not overwhelming".
It included text messages and internet history showing Nottingham was trying to obtain and research information about the Dudley case, particularly the names of the defendants.
While a police search of computers Nottingham had access to identified several key court documents, including the judge's sentencing notes, witness statements and a witness list.
Seven hours before publication of the blog, Nottingham also wrote to the police officer heading the inquiry with the subject line: "Report I Am authoring on the Dudley killing".
The Court of Appeal said much of the harassment material "could at best be described as virulent opinion with only a tangential connection to anything arguably true".
"And in respect of many of the comments, we regard even that description as excessively generous. As the Crown said in closing, the posts were littered with 'hate-filled [invective]' and were strongly misogynistic," the judges said.
When analysing Nottingham's sentence, the Court of Appeal judges arrived at 31 months' imprisonment - about 30 per cent higher than Judge Down's end point.
However, in re-sentencing Nottingham, the trio of judges was "obliged" to take into account the three and a half months of home detention he had already served.
"Allowing a seven-month discount in this respect again brings Mr Nottingham's sentence to a level where the court is obliged to consider home detention."
The court quashed the existing, part-served, sentence and imposed a new 12 months' home detention term, plus the 100 hours of community work for the suppression breach.
Nottingham's special conditions also remained, and include not using any electronic device capable of accessing the internet without prior approval from a probation officer.
Before his appeal, Nottingham had accused the ex-MP of perjury as he unsuccessfully sought the cellphone records, emails and medical notes of three of his victims - believing it would prove they had lied at his trial.
In 2003, he also faced a possible contempt of court charge after publishing a video online of a High Court judge's driving offence while it was before the courts.