'Pleading guilty and leaving it at that': Emails sink woman's claim she had no idea of plea

A woman who admitted an assault a judge said was aggravated by racist slurs went on to claim she did not know she had pleaded guilty.

The woman, whose name was permanently suppressed by the district court, was at Little Cable Bay Reserve in the Far North with her dog on January 6 last year, where the Jones whānau were having a picnic.

The summary of facts stated the woman, who was in her 60s, had her dog off-leash and teenager Aneta Jones asked her to leash it.

“You became enraged and started to yell racist profanities at her, including calling her uneducated cannibals. You used both of your hands to push her in the torso area. In explanation, you stated that the victim had insulted you, so you pushed her,” Judge Howard Sagar said at her initial sentencing in Kaitāia on May 15 last year.

“The biggest concern for me is the nature of the assault and even though it is a common assault, it does really concern me that those racist slurs were included within that for very obvious reasons, it is unacceptable.”

She was charged with common assault and, after disclosure including video footage was released, took instructions from her lawyer and pleaded guilty on February 20.

Her lawyer, Jonathan Natusch, informed the court aspects of the summary of facts were contested and a disputed facts hearing was fixed for July 7, 2025.

An agreement was reached on the summary of facts, the disputed facts hearing was vacated and she was sentenced on May 15 to an order to come up for sentence if called upon within 12 months and an emotional harm payment of $600.

But the woman appealed to the High Court, saying there had been a miscarriage of justice and stating in her affidavit she had no idea she was pleading guilty.

At the High Court hearing last month, emails exchanged between the woman and her lawyer were presented.

On the afternoon of February 20, 2025, shortly after appearing in court, the woman emailed Natusch thanking him for “doing such an amazing job today”.

“I thought later, that perhaps you mentioned the option of me just pleading guilty and leaving it at that, so I could save money on fees?” she also said.

Four days later, Natusch replied, confirming she still had the option of accepting the existing summary of facts and avoiding the disputed facts hearing scheduled.

He told her to let him know if she wanted the case brought back before its July court date.

She responded the same day, rejecting the summary of facts as “manipulative rubbish” and stating she did not accept it because it was “not fact”.

She added that a disputed facts hearing would therefore be necessary.

Natusch presented evidence of his records, dealings with police and how he handled the case.

The notes showed she disputed allegations she ignored requests to move her dog away from a family, although she did not dispute being asked to put the dog on a leash.

She also denied calling the complainant a “fat Māori b****”, but did not challenge allegations she referred to “uneducated cannibals”.

Most significantly, the notes showed she denied pushing the complainant multiple times, instead accepting she had delivered a single two-handed push.

After Natusch raised those concerns with police, the disputed allegations were removed from the summary of facts and the disputed facts hearing was vacated.

The woman pleaded guilty to the charge at the Kaitāia District Court. Photo / NZME

Justice Mathew Downs found the email exchange supported Natusch’s evidence she wanted to plead guilty and was inconsistent with her claims she did not know a guilty plea would be entered.

“While her first email could, in isolation, be interpreted that way, the later exchange clearly proceeded on the basis that a guilty plea had already been entered,” Justice Downs said in his decision.

Video footage of the incident also supported Natusch’s evidence.

Justice Downs said at least one member of the complainant’s family could be heard telling the woman, “There are no cannibals around here”.

“‘Cannibals’ is hardly a matter of daily usage. It would, therefore, be curious if the family member had used the term other than in response to X first using it,” he said.

The court found her claim she acted in self-defence faced difficulties because she was the only person who used physical force during the confrontation.

“The footage also shows a member of Ms Jones’ family repeatedly asking X why she had pushed Ms Jones. Notably, X does not say in response she believed Ms Jones was about to use force against her, or X was otherwise defending herself.”

The court rejected suggestions her health may have affected her understanding of the proceedings as no medical evidence showed she was too unwell to attend court in May 2025.

At the High Court hearing, the woman brought a witness who only came forward months before the High Court date and said he saw the incident from 200m away.

“The witness had not sworn an affidavit, despite a timetable for the filing and service of evidence,” Justice Downs said.

“I do not consider this account would have affected Mr Natusch’s advice, or the course of events more generally, had it then been available. I say this because X was the only person to use force, and it was always the position X did so because she felt ‘triggered’.”

The appeal was dismissed and the woman’s conviction and sentence stand.

Shannon Pitman is a Whangārei-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the Te Tai Tokerau region. She is of Ngāpuhi/Ngāti Pūkenga descent and has worked in digital media for the past five years. She joined NZME in 2023.