During the confrontation, she took one victim’s cellphone and threw it across the floor, pushed her in the chest and struck the side of her face with a closed fist.
She argued with the second victim outside the shop and threw the contents of a coffee cup at her.
Neither victim was physically injured. However, in impact statements read to the court, which the judge described as “graceful and articulate”, both said they were shocked and frightened by the incident. One said she was unable to leave home or return to work for several weeks and both said the incident retriggered past traumatic experiences of abuse by others.
In seeking a discharge without conviction, Paniora said the confrontation stemmed from a private dispute still to be resolved in another court jurisdiction. She said she did not intend the exchange to become physical, and the blow to the victim’s cheek was accidental and lacked force.
She also said the coffee thrown was only cold droplets from the bottom of her cup.
Paniora argued a conviction would have disproportionate consequences, including damage to her career and political prospects, harm to her employers’ reputations, and potential restrictions on overseas travel – particularly entry to Australia for an upcoming family event.
Police opposed the application. Prosecutor Sergeant Andy Glendinning told the court it was Paniora who instigated the incident and that her decision to return to the shop after initially leaving showed a degree of premeditation. He submitted that the offence involved a blow to the head and was therefore serious.
Asked by Davis whether the police had considered diversion, Glendinning said it was deemed unsuitable, citing a family harm report that recorded several incidents in which Paniora had previously been identified as a suspect, subject or mutual participant, most recently last November. He said Paniora clearly had anger issues and she should at least be convicted and sentenced to supervision.
Former Kaipara District councillor Pera Paniora represented New Zealand’s only new single-term Māori ward before it was disestablished as part of a representation review process last year.
In his decision, Davis rejected the police submission that the offending was of moderate to high gravity. He found the offending sat at the lower end of the scale and noted Paniora was charged under the Summary Offences Act rather than the Crimes Act.
While Paniora had not produced evidence of the actual impacts a conviction would have, the legal test required only a “real and appreciable risk” that such consequences would “outweigh the gravity of the offending”.
Davis acknowledged that elected officials and senior public servants are rightly held to a higher standard, but said they are also subject to disproportionate public scrutiny.
He noted Paniora had an otherwise unblemished record and said her case would likely not have attracted attention had she not been a councillor at the time.
He said Paniora had effectively been judged both in court and the court of public opinion, and there was no purpose to be served by entering convictions.
“She [Paniora], a mature woman, has led an otherwise offence-free life, who was before the court as a result of some pretty stupid acts, had fundamentally admitted the offending, albeit trying to re-litigate it a bit here today.
“Is the world a better place by convicting her?”
Judge Davis ordered Paniora to pay $500 to each victim for emotional harm. While neither wanted financial recompense, their distress should not be minimised, the judge said. They were quietly going about their business and did nothing to provoke the assaults.
He was content that even in the absence of convictions, Paniora’s offences would still be disclosed through future police vetting processes and considered by the Law Society as part of her annual practising certificate.
Sarah Curtis is a news reporter for the Northern Advocate, focusing on a wide range of issues. She has nearly 20 years’ experience in journalism, mostly as a court reporter in Gisborne and on the East Coast.