Former Black Cap Mathew Sinclair speaks to a police officer outside McDonalds in Taradale after a domestic incident.
Former Black Cap Mathew Sinclair speaks to a police officer outside McDonalds in Taradale after a domestic incident.
Family upheaval adds to problems for struggling former Black Cap.
• This story has been the subject of a Press Council ruling. Read the full decision at the end of the article
Former cricket star Mathew Sinclair sparked a manhunt when he vanished with his children after a domestic incident.
Police were called to the Hawke's Bay family home owned by the 39-year-old and his wife, Tina, about 3.30pm yesterday. It is understood Tina called police.
The Sinclairs have two young children, Liam and Holly, with whom Sinclair fled the Taradale property.
Officers found Sinclair and the children at a fast-food restaurant about an hour later. He accompanied officers outside, where they spoke for about 30 minutes. Sinclair then returned to the restaurant, before leaving with his children.
Senior Sergeant Ross Smith wouldn't confirm the identity of those involved, but said: "It's a domestic between two partners going through a separation. [The man] left before police arrived."
Smith said the man had fled the property with his children.
The Herald on Sunday understands that it is the second time police have been called to the property in recent days.
Last night, Sinclair told the Herald on Sunday: "I've got no comment. I'm not saying anything at all."
Sinclair was once one of cricket's brightest stars, becoming an overnight sensation when he scored 214 on debut for New Zealand in 1999.
But he was unable to cement a spot with the team in an 11-year international career and has since made no secret of demons he has battled. He had a stint on the dole and was made redundant from a job as a sales assistant after retiring from professional cricket in July 2013.
In March, Sinclair, now a real estate agent, told an Indian Express reporter visiting Hawke's Bay for the Cricket World Cup that he was facing turmoil in his home life.
"The personal scene is tough," he said. "There are [a] few problems with my wife, I must admit. We are trying to work things [out] together.
"She has been a cricket widow for a long time - taking care of our kids while I have been away and also, this entire financial situation. It's not been easy for her. Or for me. We are working at it."
Mathew Sinclair leaves McDonalds in Taradale with his children.
Last September, he told the Herald: "I can understand why sportspeople get depressed. You feel like you're not wanted after playing the game for so long when everything is done for you. It's hard to grasp where you're going next. It really played on my mind as the main bread winner with a young family."
Neighbours were shocked at police activity in the quiet cul-de-sac. One, who didn't want to be named, said: "We saw the police cars and saw an officer coming from the alleyway by the creek with a notepad. We know who lives there but we don't see the family a lot."
Press Council ruling
On April 19 2015, in print and online, The Herald on Sunday covered an incident involving Mathew Sinclair, former Black Cap, having allegedly "vanished with his children" after a domestic incident. The story referred to the police finding Mr Sinclair and the children at a fast food restaurant not long afterwards. The story referred to Mr and Mrs Sinclair's two young children by name. The print version carried a posed family photograph. The online version carried a photo of the children, with pixelated faces, accompanying their father leaving a Taradale restaurant on the day of the incident.
Paul Cronin complained that the photographs and naming of the children breached the Press Council principles of Privacy and Children and Young People. It was, he said, "gutter journalism at its worst" and that the children were likely to have been harmed by the reference to them. He said the children could not give consent to their images being used, and there was no legitimate public interest in the matter.
In response the newspaper said Mr Sinclair had left the home where he lived with his wife taking the children with him after police had been called to the property. There was concern about the wellbeing of the children and police were called to search for them. This elevated the matter into the public domain. The decision was taken to obscure the children's faces in the online photograph "to reflect to their lack of responsibility for whatever had gone on in this instance". Mr Sinclair had previously consented to publication of the photo used to illustrate the print story. In this photo the children were about two years younger.
The Press Council states that in cases involving children, editors must demonstrate an exceptional degree of public interest which overrides the interests of the child or young person. The public interest in the story was far from being sufficient to override the interests of the children. These children did not deserve to be identified in this story and there can be no doubt that the children's privacy, in their being named and photographed, was breached.
The Press Council also noted some inconsistency in the newspaper's approach. The newspaper was concerned enough to pixilate the faces of the children in the photo taken on the day of the incident and yet they were named in the story, and identified in the published family photo. In these circumstances it is difficult to see what the newspaper thought it was achieving just by the pixilation.
The council did not agree that the fact Mr Sinclair may have permitted the publication of the family photograph at an earlier time justified the newspaper's approach. If such permission was given the permission would have applied in a different context, and not this one where this family was under stress.
The council found the newspaper breached both principles.
