Cooper v The King

[2025] NZHC 710

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS CONTAINED IN THIS JUDGMENT AT [51] PURSUANT TO S 205 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WAIHARAKEKE ROHE

CRI-2024-406-015

[2025] NZHC 710

BETWEEN

HUNTER DAVID JOHN COOPER

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:	5 March 2025
Appearances:	R A Harrison for Appellant J M Webber for Respondent
Judgment:	31 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Redacted) (Appeal against sentence)

Introduction

[1]                 Mr Hunter Cooper, the appellant pleaded guilty to one representative charge of importation of a Class B drug, being MDMA,1 and one charge of possession for supply of a Class B drug, being MDMA.2 He was sentenced on those charges to three and a half years’ imprisonment on 3 December 2024.3

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a) and (2)(b) — maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

2      Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(b) — maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

3      R v Cooper [2024] NZDC 29144 [decision under appeal].

COOPER v R (redacted) [2025] NZHC 710 [31 March 2025]

[2]Mr Cooper now appeals against his sentence on the grounds that:

(a)a lower starting point was justified based on the low social harm rating of  MDMA  compared  to   other   Class   B   drugs   according   to The New Zealand drug harms ranking study: A multi-criteria decision analysis (the New Zealand drug study);4

(b)the five per cent discount given for “other matters” was insufficient; and

(c)further credit should have been given for Mr Cooper’s unique set of circumstances.

[3]                 Mr Harrison, for Mr Cooper, suggests that a starting point of no more than five years would be appropriate, along with a 25 per cent discount for “other matters”, and an increased discount for personal family circumstances (of an unspecified amount but greater than three per cent). He submitted that the extra discounts sought plus other reductions already made by the sentencing Judge, would amount to an end sentence of less than 18 months. On that basis, he seeks that the appellant’s sentence be commuted to one of home detention.

[4]                 The Crown opposes the appeal, on the basis that the starting point sought is out of line with relevant authorities, the discounts sought are excessive, and the challenges on appeal have been tailored to reach a sentence which can be commuted to home detention. It submits that the Judge did not err in his approach and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Factual background

[5]                 The factual basis upon which Mr Cooper was sentenced is contained in the agreed summary of facts to which he pleaded guilty. A disputed facts hearing had been initially sought by Mr Cooper’s previous counsel. However, following the police

4      Crossin and others “The New Zealand drug harms ranking study: A multi-criteria decision analysis” (2023) 37 J Psychopharmacol 891. The first ground of appeal was initially framed as two separate grounds in the appellant’s  notice  of  appeal,  however  counsel  combined  the  two grounds together in his written…