Cooper v Police - [2025] NZHC 2333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2025-412-51

[2025] NZHC 2333

BETWEEN
AMY COOPER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 August 2025

Appearances:

B P Stephenson for Appellant (via VMR) J C Collins for Respondent (via VMR)

Judgment:

18 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 August 2025 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

COOPER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2333 [18 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 9 May 2025, Amy Cooper was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment on a raft of dishonesty, driving and drug related offending as well as a conviction for breaching community work, by Judge Flatley in the Dunedin District Court.1

[2]She appeals that sentence, on the grounds:

(a)the starting point for the lead charge of receiving; and

(b)uplifts imposed for the drug related offences and breach of community work were too high.

Charges

[3]Ms Cooper was sentenced on the following charges:

(a)theft (under $500) (x11);2

(b) theft (over $1,000) (x2);3

(c)receiving property valued (over $1,000);4

(d)driving whilst disqualified 3rd or subsequent (x3);5

(e)possession of a Class A controlled drug (methamphetamine);6

(f)possession of a utensil (methamphetamine pipe);7

1      Police v Cooper [2025] NZDC 13559.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
3      Section 219 and 223(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 246 and 247(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and s 32(4); maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment, or $6,000 fine and six month disqualification from driving.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or
$1000 fine.
7      Sections 13(1)(a) and (3); maximum penalty one year imprisonment.

(g)possession of a Class A controlled drug (LSD);8

(h)breach of community work; and9

(i)providing false or misleading information (x2).10

Facts

[4] Ms Cooper’s offending can be separated into three distinct categories: driving offending; theft and receiving offending; and drug offending.

Driving offending

[5] On 19 February 2024 Ms Cooper was disqualified from driving for a period of six months.

[6] On 25 May 2024, Ms Cooper drove to a service station in Oamaru. On that occasion she also left the service station without paying for an item, leading to one of the charges of shoplifting.

[7] On 6 June 2024, Ms Cooper was pulled over in the early hours of the morning after police observed Ms Cooper driving at 118km/h in a 100km/h area. However, her vehicle was fitted with a space saver tyre limiting it to a speed of 80km/h, so the vehicle was travelling 38km/h in excess of the speed limit. Ms Cooper provided identification details and after a non-operation order (pink sticker) was issued in respect of the vehicle she was allowed to proceed to get the vehicle off the road. Police subsequently became aware that the name and address she supplied were false.…

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 Cooper v Police

Details

AGLC: Cooper v Police [2025] NZHC 2333
Case: [2025] NZHC 2333
Decision Date: 18 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amy Cooper appeals against the 30-month imprisonment sentence imposed on her by Judge Flatley in the Dunedin District Court, arguing that the starting point for the lead charge of receiving and the uplifts imposed for drug-related offenses and breach of community work were too high. The appeal was heard in the High Court, with B P Stephenson representing the appellant and J C Collins representing the respondent. The court found that the District Court judge did not err in setting the starting point for the lead charge of receiving property valued over $1,000 at 20 months' imprisonment, as it was within the appropriate range and the judge had considered factors beyond the value of the items received. Additionally, the court found that the uplifts for drug-related offenses and breach of community work, totaling three months' imprisonment, were not excessive, as the underlying cause of the offenses was Ms Cooper's methamphetamine abuse, which had already been taken into account in the sentence reduction for remorse, insight, and addiction history. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court are that the appeal is dismissed.

Orders