Cooper v The King - [2025] NZCA 272

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA727/2024
[2025] NZCA 272

BETWEEN	TE RAUTI HAUPAPA COOPER Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	19 May 2025
Court:	Hinton, van Bohemen and Cull JJ
Counsel:	G H Vear and N Reive for Appellant H D L Steele and M S Chiraagh for Respondent
Judgment:	25 June 2025 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed.
BThe sentence of six years and four months’ imprisonment is set aside and a sentence of five years and seven months’ imprisonment is imposed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cull J)

Introduction

Mr Cooper appeals his sentence of six years and four months’ imprisonment.[1] He pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.[2]
[1]R v Cooper [2024] NZDC 24674 [sentencing notes].
[2]Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
He contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive for three reasons. First, he says that the Judge adopted a starting point that was too high. Second, he submits the Judge failed to adequately reflect the impact of his background under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Lastly, the Judge imposed an excessive uplift for prior convictions.

Background to the offending

On 17 November 2023, Mr Cooper took a loaded firearm to retrieve a debt, and parked outside the victim’s accommodation.[3] He acknowledges he was under the influence of methamphetamine and MDMA at the time. As the victim emerged from the building, Mr Cooper got out of the car, approached him and demanded his bag.[4] The victim ran. Mr Cooper gave chase, raised his firearm, and shot the victim in the back.[5] He then fled the scene.
[3]Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [2].
[4]At [2].
[5]At [2].
The shooting occurred in the presence of a nearby schoolchild and passing traffic.[6] The victim survived the shooting but was in hospital for five days receiving treatment for his gunshot wound.[7] He required a chest drain and had bullet fragments that could not be removed.

Sentencing decision

[6]At [3].

[7]At [3].

The Judge determined, and counsel agreed, that the offending sat near the top of the second band in R v Taueki.[8] The Judge noted the following features which made the offending serious:[9]
(a)the use of a dangerous weapon;
(b)the serious injury caused; and
(c)premeditation, in that Mr Cooper brought a weapon with him for a confrontation.
[8]At [8], citing R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA).
[9]Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [5]–[7].
Noting that cases in the second Taueki band should attract starting points of between five and 10 years’ imprisonment, the Judge adopted a starting point of eight years’ imprisonment.[10] He observed that, if multiple offenders had been involved, Mr Cooper’s offending would have involved a starting point in the low to middle part of band three.[11]
[10]At [8].
[11]At [8].
For Mr Cooper’s previous convictions for violence, the Judge imposed a five per…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Cooper v The King [2025] NZCA 272
Case: [2025] NZCA 272
Decision Date: 25 June 2025 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Cooper appeals against his sentence of six years and four months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Court of Appeal found that the starting point of eight years was within the available range but that the reduction for Mr Cooper’s background factors was too low. The Court found that the Judge’s reliance on Carroll v Police was misplaced and that the minimal six per cent reduction for Mr Cooper’s background factors was inappropriate. The Court found that a reduction of 15 per cent for Mr Cooper’s background factors was appropriate, given the causal connection between Mr Cooper’s background and the offending, together with his remorse and the rehabilitative steps he has undertaken. The five per cent uplift for Mr Cooper’s previous convictions for violence was appropriate and did not amount to double punishment. The appeal is allowed, and the sentence of six years and four months’ imprisonment is set aside and a sentence of five years and seven months’ imprisonment is imposed.

Orders