R v Coburn - [2024] NZHC 1769

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2023-019-3415

[2024] NZHC 1769

THE KING

v

RICHARD MATHEW COBURN

Hearing: 27 June 2024

Appearances:

R L Mann for Crown

R J Laybourn for Defendant

Sentence:

27 June 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Hamilton Legal, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton Counsel: R J Laybourn, Hamilton

R v COBURN [2024] NZHC 1769 [27 June 2024]

[1]Mr Coburn, you are for sentence today for the manslaughter of your partner,

Paige Tutemahurangi, on 1 July 2023.1

[2] The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment but I shall be imposing a determinate sentence, by which I mean one of a fixed term.2

[3]As I said at the end of the trial, what has happened in this case is a tragedy.

[4] Paige Tutemahurangi was not only your partner, but you and she had a little boy, and he has now lost his mother as a result of your actions.

[5] That the jury’s verdict was manslaughter, rather than murder, means that the jury was not satisfied that you intended to kill Paige or appreciated that there was a serious risk that your actions might do so. But it does not alter the fact that you are responsible for Paige’s death, and nor does it diminish in any way the loss that has been suffered.

[6] Paige’s death has been and is devastating — for her, for her whānau, and of course for your little boy. Paige was 25 when she died, and an excellent and loving mother. She was also her mother’s only daughter. The two were very close, and they enjoyed each other’s company.

[7] Paige’s death is also a shocking waste of a young life. She had at least the next 60 years ahead of her — 60 years of Christmas holidays, New Years days, birthdays, her child’s birthdays, his first day at school, family weddings, celebrations, and the countless other events that would have made her life exciting and pleasurable.

[8] The many victim impact statements that I have received, two of which have been read aloud in Court today, are testament to her personality, popularity, kindness, and her sweet nature.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 171.
2 Section 177.

[9] Everyone in the Court will understand that nothing I say or do today will diminish that loss. Despite how Paige’s whānau must have felt during the trial, they behaved with great dignity throughout and I was and remain grateful to them for doing so.

Process

[10] Now, what I am going to do, Mr Coburn, is summarise what happened. Then I am going to turn to the sentencing process itself, which comprises two separate stages.

[11] It is a process that takes some time, but it is important that I explain the reasons why I have done what I am going to do. You will not know the sentence until I get to the very end which will be a good 15…

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 R v Coburn

Details

AGLC: R v Coburn [2024] NZHC 1769
Case: [2024] NZHC 1769
Decision Date: 27 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Richards Mathew Coburn was sentenced for the manslaughter of his partner, Paige Tutemahurangi, who died on 1 July 2023. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for manslaughter, considering the factors that would establish a starting point and subsequently adjust it based on personal circumstances. The legal issues involved determining the seriousness of the offence, the starting point for sentencing, and the adjustments based on aggravating and mitigating factors.

Peters J began by acknowledging the tragic nature of Paige's death and the devastating impact on her family and their young child. The court identified the starting point for sentencing based on the principles of accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and consistency with similar cases. A starting point of eight years and four months imprisonment was chosen, considering the factors of extreme violence, attacking the head, the vulnerability of the victim, and the resulting death. The court then considered personal mitigating factors, including Coburn's remorse, his efforts to address alcohol use and violence, and his background, which showed a pattern of violence linked to alcohol consumption. The court reduced the starting point by 15 months to account for these factors. Additionally, the court took into account Coburn's offer to plead guilty to manslaughter, which led to a further reduction of 15 per cent, bringing the final sentence to five years and ten months imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years.

Orders