NZ High Court Overturns Vaccine Critic’s Airport Assault Conviction

The court considered whether gently placing a hand on a person’s shoulder warranted a conviction.

General view of the High Court in Christchurch, New Zealand on Aug. 26, 2020. Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images

The conviction of a television host who became a prominent protester against COVID mandates and lockdowns has had her assault conviction overturned by New Zealand’s High Court.

Liz Gunn—real name Elizabeth Jane Cooney—was found guilty in May last year of assaulting an airport worker following an incident at Auckland Airport.

Gunn was a litigation lawyer before beginning her TV career in 1992.

She became a co-host of TVNZ’s Breakfast show, but unexpectedly quit that role live on-air in 1997. During the 2020s she became a leading vaccine sceptic in New Zealand and went on to form the NZ Loyal political party, which unsuccessfully fought the 2023 election.

That year, Gunn and a cameraman had gone to the airport to film an interview. The cameraman was holding a professional camera, which caused the pair to be approached by a security guard and told to stop, as commercial filming inside the airport required a permit.

The pair refused, arguing that they were making a video of friends and not making any profit, pointing out that what they were doing was no different from people filming friends and family on their cellphones.

During that exchange, Gunn placed a hand on the guard’s shoulder.

Sharp Pain or Gentle Touch?

The court was later told this caused a “sharp pain,” though Gunn denied it was assault and said it was more like gentle touch. The police were called, and CCTV showed that, within 18 seconds of their arrival, both Gunn and her cameraman were arrested and fell to the ground.

Gunn said in court that it was she who had been assaulted, by one of the police officers which left her with a fractured wrist. Nonetheless she was found guilty.

In November, a judge convicted and discharged Gunn on the charge of assault, and dismissed charges of trespass, as she was not given enough warning to leave the airport.

Although that meant she faced no penalty, Gunn felt the conviction was unjustified and appealed to the High Court.

In overturning the lower court’s decision, Justice Mary Peters referred to a precedent-setting case which decided that “certain forms of contact are considered generally acceptable, and one is touching a person to engage their attention, provided that no greater degree of physical contact is employed than is reasonably necessary in the circumstances.”

Gunn’s contact with the security guard’s arm, the judge said, was “fleeting.”

Justice Peters said that even if she had not allowed the appeal against the conviction, she would have allowed an appeal against the refusal to discharge Gunn without conviction.

“What occurred between Ms Gunn and [the guard] was trivial. There was no dispute in the District Court, and there is none on appeal, that any offending was at the very lowest possible level.

“A conviction for criminal offending carries a stigma. Many in the community would not understand ‘assault’ to include a fleeting touch, such as that which occurred in this case. Moreover, that stigma is particularly relevant in this instance because Ms. Gunn, now in her 60s, has an otherwise unblemished record.”