Coffin v The King - [2024] NZHC 2272

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2024-412-25

CRI-2024-412-26 [2024] NZHC 2272

BETWEEN
ELLERY CHARLES COFFIN

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 12 August 2024

Appearances:

A M Dawson for Appellant

M E A Brosnan for Respondent

Judgment:

13 August 2024

Reissued:

3 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 August 2024 at 3 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

COFFIN v R [2024] NZHC 2272 [13 August 2024]

Introduction

[1] Ellery Coffin pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure,1 possession of methamphetamine,2 and possession of cannabis.3 On 13 May 2024 he was sentenced by Judge Turner to two years and two months’ imprisonment. Mr Coffin now appeals his sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive.

Alleged offending

Injuring with intent

[2] The victim of the offending is known to both Mr Coffin and his co-defendant. On 9 May 2023, the victim was at the home of a mutual friend in Dunedin. By chance, the defendants arrived at the address where they met up with the victim. An argument developed between the victim and Mr Coffin over a recent incident involving Mr Coffin’s car being taken and damaged.

[3] The verbal altercation became physical when Mr Coffin punched the victim. This caused the victim to drop, but he tried to fight back, at which point the second defendant joined in. Both attacked the victim, kicking and punching him. The victim’s face, chest, and stomach were targeted. The victim was dragged into the bedroom and thrown onto the bed where the attack continued. At one point, while Mr Coffin was punching the victim, the victim said he felt his right eye “pop”.

[4] After this attack, which lasted several minutes, the victim was dragged into the lounge and continued to be hit. Ultimately, the attack came to an end when the co-defendant pulled Mr Coffin off the victim. The victim was the given a cigarette and told to clean himself up, but the defendants said they would be back. They then left the address.

[5] The victim sustained a broken eye socket, severely bruised eyes, bruising to his arms and legs and superficial marks to his right shoulder.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1) and (2). Maximum penalty: six months’ imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1) and (2). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment.

Possession of drugs

[6] Three days later, when police came to speak to Mr Coffin, he was located in a car. Police saw a methamphetamine pipe in the vehicle and invoked their powers of search under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. 0.8 of a gram of methamphetamine was found in a container in the centre console along with six grams of cannabis leaf. Other drug paraphernalia was also found.

Sentencing decision

[7]…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Coffin v The King

Details

AGLC: Coffin v The King [2024] NZHC 2272
Case: [2024] NZHC 2272
Decision Date: 13 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ellery Charles Coffin appealed against his sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment, imposed for injuring with intent, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of cannabis. The appeal was heard by the High Court of New Zealand at Dunedin. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, warranting a substitution by the appellate court. The appellant argued that the starting point should have been lower, and that the uplifts applied for the drug charges and aggravating factors were excessive. The respondent maintained that the sentence was appropriate and within the range that could properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles.

The court considered the starting point for the lead offence, finding that the judge was correct in placing the offending between bands two and three, with a starting point of two years and eight months. The court found that the number of attackers and the intensity of the attack justified a moderate assessment of these aggravating factors. The court also considered the uplifts applied for the drug charges and aggravating factors. It found that the one-month uplift for the drug charges was appropriate, and that a five per cent uplift for the aggravating factors was also justified. The court found that the final sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed. Ellery Charles Coffin remains subject to the original sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment.

Orders