A hoodie was stolen on March 14, 2024, from the victim’s house while she wasn’t home.
The victim’s child believed Parkinson’s son stole it.
The victim reported it to police, but later that day, she went to Parkinson’s house and confronted her.
The victim spoke to Parkinson, who remained inside her house and spoke to her out of a bathroom window.
The conversation became argumentative and verbally abusive, and Parkinson started throwing bathroom products towards the victim through the window.
The victim retreated to her car at the end of the driveway, and Parkinson’s partner followed her to ensure she left.
The victim was still yelling at Parkinson and her partner as she was leaving, which woke Parkinson’s baby, who began screaming.
This made Parkinson angry. She left the house and got a hammer from the deck.
She approached the victim and swung the hammer, striking her knee. Several further swings didn’t connect, but another swing got the victim in her left eye, which “popped”, the appeal judgement said.
With the victim still on the ground holding her bleeding eye, Parkinson threw the hammer in the shed and went back into her house.
The victim suffered a globe rupture and has lost sight in that eye permanently. She is awaiting surgery to have the eye removed, the judgment said.
Parkinson appealed against her sentence on the grounds that the judge’s starting point was too high and that he didn’t allow sufficient discounts, making the sentence manifestly excessive.
She also felt greater weight should have been given to the impacts of her imprisonment on her children when assessing whether she should be given home detention. Parkinson has her baby with her in prison.
Parkinson’s lawyer, Alexandra McPherson, raised several areas where they felt the judge didn’t give enough discounts, including for Parkinson’s remorse and background factors.
Justice Jane Anderson said the law must allow the appeal if it was satisfied that there was an error and the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.
She said that, while the discount for personal factors in Parkinson’s background was insufficient, the end sentence was not out of range.
“Here, there are aspects where the judge was generous, countering the insufficiency of other discounts.”
One of the areas where Judge Bidois did not increase the sentence was when considering Parkinson’s previous offending.
She had several assault convictions, including a road rage incident in 2023 when she followed a driver to her workplace after objecting to the woman’s driving, the judgment said.
On that occasion, Parkinson picked up a tyre iron, approached the victim, yelling and swearing, and swung the tyre iron multiple times with force, hitting the woman’s vehicle.
Justice Anderson said Judge Bidois applied an overall discount of 25% for personal mitigating factors, which was appropriate when considering the circumstances as a whole.
Kelly Makiha is a senior journalist who has reported for the Rotorua Daily Post for more than 25 years, covering mainly police, court, human interest and social issues.