A Wakatipu man who assaulted his wife because he believed she was having an affair has failed in his bid to have his convictions overturned.
The man, who has permanent name suppression, was convicted of two charges of male assaults female, one charge of possession of an offensive weapon, and one charge of intentional damage following a judge-alone trial in the Queenstown District Court in March 2018.
The judge declined his request for a discharge without conviction, and he was sentenced to 12 months' supervision and ordered to pay $1000 in reparation to the victim.
According to the judgement of Justice Helen Cull, the couple had been experiencing marriage difficulties as a result of the man's jealousy of a male associate of his wife.
Some time between August 5 and 15 2017, the man found a painting in a closet at their house that depicted a man and a woman, which his wife had painted.
He thought the couple depicted resembled his wife and her associate, and destroyed the painting by cutting it up with a pair of scissors.
While he was destroying the painting, his wife attempted to intervene. He was found to have pinned her to the ground while holding the scissors.
About one month later, on September 10, his wife was preparing to attend a yoga or meditation class.
He believed she was too dressed up, and suspected she was meeting her associate.
He picked up her cellphone and argued with her about where she was going.
An altercation followed when she tried to take it back.
She then cancelled her plans for the evening and contacted her associate to say she would not be going to the class.
Her husband confronted her about contacting the man, while holding a large knife from the kitchen, before punching her on the jaw.
In his appeal, the man's lawyer, Liam Collins, argued the judge had erred by convicting him after accepting some of his wife's evidence while rejecting other elements of it.
On the issue of a discharge without conviction, Mr Collins also submitted the judge gave insufficient credit for the man's mental health difficulties and low risk of reoffending.
But Justice Cull found the sentencing was appropriate, and dismissed both appeals.
