Coupe v Police - [2013] NZHC 717

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI 2013-425-000001 [2013] NZHC 717

SAMUEL GORDON COUPE
Appellant

v

POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 8 April 2013

Counsel: F Guy-Kidd for Appellant
R W Donnelly for Respondent

Judgment: 8 April 2013

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

[1] Friends of Mr Samuel Coupe entered into an agreement with the victim, Mr Maynard, to purchase drugs from him. Mr Maynard was then paid $740 in exchange for a plastic bag containing white powder that Mr Coupe’s friends believed to be illegal drugs. It turned out that it was not drugs. They felt that they were “ripped off” and later in the day pursued the victim, Mr Maynard, and assaulted him. Some of them tried to take him to an ATM so that he could “pay the $740 back”. Mr Coupe pleaded guilty to a charge of assault with intent to commit a crime,
namely theft by violent means rendering Mr Maynard incapable of resistance.[1]

COUPE V POLICE HC INV CRI 2013-425-000001 [8 April 2013]

[1] A charge laid under s 191(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961.

[2] Mr Coupe was sentenced to an end sentence of two years and nine months imprisonment and required to make reparation of $2,000 to the male victim and
$1,000 to a female victim, the latter in relation to a charge of male assaults female. He was discharged on a charge of kidnapping.

[3] Mr Coupe now appeals both conviction and sentence. He claims that he objected to a last minute amendment to the charge from a lesser aggravating wounding charge to a charge involving wounding with intent to commit theft. He says that he held a claim of right and that he was pursuing the return of his friends’ money. He also says that a substitute sentence of just under two years should be imposed in light of the proper charge.

[4] As Mr Coupe has already served one year and one week of his sentence, it is necessary to resolve this appeal with some urgency because if he is successful on his appeal he could be entitled to release relatively soon.

Background

[5] In order to understand the appeal, it is necessary to detail the background upon which conviction and sentencing was based.

[6] Mr Coupe pleaded guilty to a summary of facts that was not contested so this forms the proper narrative for the purposes of the appeal.

[7] A group of friends, Rachel Maree Faul, Brooke Sylvia Carpenter, Charlotte Amelia Spencer Dickson, Daniel John Kissell, and the appellant, Mr Coupe, Brodie O’Rourke and Jonathon Charles Burke were out one evening in Queenstown. While they were out at a nightclub they purchased Ecstasy and then later that night Mr Kissell, Mr O’Rourke and Mr Burke paid money to Ms Faul for the purpose of obtaining drugs for the group. Ms Faul had arranged by text message to meet Mr Maynard. By this stage she had $740 cash comprised of $240 from Messrs Kissell, O’Rourke and Burke, $30 from Ms…

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 Coupe v Police

Details

AGLC: Coupe v Police [2013] NZHC 717
Case: [2013] NZHC 717
Decision Date: 8 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Samuel Coupe, appeals against both his conviction and sentence. The appeal concerns an incident where Mr Coupe and a group of friends had purchased drugs from a man, Mr Maynard, believing they were illegal drugs. Upon consuming the substance, they realised it was not drugs but rather flour mixed with brown sugar. They felt they had been "ripped off" and decided to confront Mr Maynard to retrieve their money. This led to an assault on Mr Maynard and another female, Ms Caig, who tried to intervene. Mr Coupe pleaded guilty to a charge of assault with intent to commit a crime, namely theft by violent means. He was sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment and ordered to make reparation to the victims. The appeal focuses on two primary issues: the applicability of the claim of right defence and the appropriateness of the sentence.

The court considers whether Mr Coupe could have been found guilty of aggravated wounding with intent to commit a crime, namely theft by violent means, given that he believed he was acting with a claim of right. The court notes that the summary of facts indicates that Mr Coupe and his friends believed they were entitled to retrieve the money they had paid for the drugs, which they felt were not supplied. The court examines the statutory definition of claim of right, which includes a belief that the act is lawful, even if based on ignorance or mistake of fact or law. The court concludes that the facts do not establish that Mr Coupe acted dishonestly, as he genuinely believed he was entitled to reclaim the money.

Regarding the sentence, the court acknowledges that the starting point should be reduced due to the change in the charge. After considering submissions from both parties, the court agrees on a substitute sentence of 23 months. The appeal is thus successful, with the original sentence being quashed and replaced with a 23-month sentence. The court emphasises that it does not condone criminal transactions but considers the full context of the offending, including the illegal nature of the drug deal, in its sentencing decision.

Orders