A former All Black has lost an appeal to keep his name secret after punching a woman in the face so hard she still has breathing issues.
Former All Black Zac Guildford has lost a months-long appeal to keep his name secret after punching a woman in the face so hard she still has breathing issues.
Guildford was lambasted by Judge Robert Spear in the Hamilton District Court in January after being sentenced on a charge of male assaults female after the drunken incident, the NZ Herald reported.
The 11-game All Black veteran had been pushing for suppression so it wouldn’t affect a possible rugby contract in Western Australia – where rugby bosses were unaware of his latest incident.
He appealed to the High Court in February, but in a decision released last month Justice Paul Davison dismissed both appeals and gave him a 20 working day extension on suppression.
At his sentencing, he was given two years’ intensive supervision which would be reviewed after 12 months.
The sentence also carries judicial monitoring which is where the sentencing judge is given reports of his progress every three months.
Guildford is no stranger to controversy and has been open about his struggles with drugs, alcohol and depression since his All Blacks debut in 2009.
In 2011, he hit the headlines after a drunken, naked attack on two holidaymakers in Rarotonga.
Dripping wet and bleeding from a gash to his forehead and wounds on his chest and knees, the then 22-year-old first punched one man in the bar who asked him if he needed help, then hit an Australian across the back of the head.
He has since appeared on a driving charge – speeding – and in 2019 was convicted of driving while suspended.
‘A savage blow’
His latest incident stems from a night out drinking in a Taradale, Napier, bar with friends just before Christmas in 2019.
Dubbed “grossly intoxicated” by Judge Spear, the sportsman was offered a ride home by associates and jumped in the back seat of the car.
A woman in the front passenger seat turned to say something when, without any warning, he punched her in the face, which Judge Spear described as “a savage blow” that left her bloodied and bruised.
The victim was due to fly to Mexico the following day with family but had to cancel her trip.
Thirteen months on, she still suffered from ongoing issues breathing through her nose, the judge said.
When questioned by police at the time, Guildford said he hadn’t realised he had punched a woman.
Judge Spear noted Guildford has very few previous convictions in New Zealand, but noted his drunken overseas antics, notably the Rarotonga incident.
The judge said it appeared Guildford had become angry at the victim mentioning a relative of his who had been undergoing detoxification for drug abuse and lashed out.
Judge Spear noted that once Guildford had sobered up he was “extremely apologetic and remorseful”.
Guildford and the victim had a successful restorative justice conference in July 2020.
He paid her $3000 reparation and she had supported his name suppression bid.
Guildford has been living with his grandparents in Featherston and working as a mental health worker for Te Hauora Rūnanga o Wairarapa.
He has also attended several counselling sessions for his own rehabilitation with psychologist Sara Chatwin.
Guildford’s lawyer Rob Quin said he had been offered a contract with a Perth rugby team in late 2018.
There was also “some potential” for it to lead to a contract with the Western Force Super Rugby team.
Quin said his client knew he had somewhat of a troubled past and was making attempts to better himself.
Although he had a limited criminal history none of it had involved violence against women.
He said publication of Guildford’s name would “effectively lead to public shaming” which wouldn’t assist in his rehabilitation and would have an adverse effect on his mental health.
He cited that although the incident was fuelled by alcohol it was the first time of any violence towards a woman.
Police prosecutor Sergeant Andy Kennedy opposed the permanent name suppression application on the basis that his prospective employer was not aware of the new offending.
‘No good reason for suppression’
In denying name suppression, Judge Spear said he “could see no good reason” why it shouldn‘t be made public.
At the appeal in High Court in February, Quin argued intensive supervision was “manifestly excessive” and although his client had a ”colourful history”, those sentences were reserved for defendants with “somewhat more complex needs”.
He cited a recent Court of Appeal decision in which name suppression was given to a man due to concerns about “cancel or call out culture on the internet” and that his client‘s offending would garner higher public interest due to his sporting history.
This article originally appeared on the NZ Herald and was reproduced without permission