Legal Research
Cases
Coster-Jury v The King

Coster-Jury v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 2866 30 September 2025

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2025-412-000065

CRI-2025-412-000066 [2025] NZHC 2866

BETWEEN
TANE JOHN COSTER-JURY

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 17 September 2025

Appearances:

S A Saunderson-Warner for Appellant (via VMR) J C Collins for Respondent (via VMR)

Judgment:

30 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 September 2025 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

COSTER-JURY v R [2025] NZHC 2866 [30 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] In June 2024 the appellant Tane Coster-Jury, a serving prisoner, was part of a violent group assault on another inmate. Four months later, while still in custody, Mr Coster-Jury responded to an assault by another inmate by punching, kicking and stomping that prisoner unconscious.

[2] Mr Coster-Jury pleaded guilty to charges of assault with intent to injure1 and common assault.2 Judge Robinson sentenced him to 26 months’ imprisonment.3

[3]Mr Coster-Jury appeals the sentence as manifestly excessive.

[4]He contends the Judge erred by:

(a)failing to apply the principle of parity relating to the group attack;

(b)declining to adjust the sentence for totality;

(c)providing only five per cent credit for personal and background factors; and

(d)declining to give any credit for remorse.

The offending

[5]The offending in each assault was captured on CCTV.

Assault with intent to injure — June 2024

[6] On 26 June 2024, Mr Coster-Jury was an inmate at Otago Correctional Facility. At approximately 10.00 am, he and three co-offenders were in an exercise yard along with the victim and other prisoners.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 193—maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 196—maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment. Mr Coster-Jury was originally charged with assault with intent to injure but this was amended to common assault.
3      Police v Coster-Jury [2025] NZDC 18499.

[7] Mr Coster-Jury approached the victim and punched him. Two co-offenders quickly joined the assault and all three men punched and kicked the victim to the head and body multiple times. They then stood over the victim, who was on the ground, and the fourth co-offender walked over to kick the victim in the head. Mr Coster-Jury punched the victim once and another co-offender kicked the victim once.

[8] This initial assault lasted approximately 47 seconds. During this time the victim held up his arm to try and protect himself from the kicks and punches.

[9] The four offenders exchanged hugs with each other then walked back to the victim who was still on the ground. The victim stood up and they circled him. A co- offender punched the victim, before Mr Coster-Jury and another co-offender delivered multiple kicks and punches.

[10] This second assault lasted approximately 18 seconds before the offenders stopped. At no point does the CCTV footage show that the victim attempting to fight back. The victim was transported to Dunedin Public Hospital where he was admitted for the night. The victim sustained injuries including swelling…

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 Coster-Jury v The King

Details

AGLC: Coster-Jury v The King [2025] NZHC 2866
Case: [2025] NZHC 2866
Decision Date: 30 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tane Coster-Jury appeals his sentence for two prison assaults, arguing it is manifestly excessive. He contends the sentence should reflect parity with co-offenders, a totality adjustment, greater credit for background factors, and credit for remorse. The Crown submits the sentence is within range and does not disclose an error.

The court first examines whether the starting point adequately reflected parity with co-offenders. The court found the judge properly assessed the respective culpability of each offender, and the starting point of 21 months was appropriate. The court also found no error in the judge declining a totality adjustment, stating the combined starting point was consistent with the leading authorities. The court next considered the mitigation arguments. The court found a 10 per cent deduction for background factors appropriate, but did not consider a deduction for remorse warranted given the evidence. The court concluded the sentence of 26 months was not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the appeal.

Orders