R v Couper - [2025] NZHC 855

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-044-002489

[2025] NZHC 855

THE KING

v

DARREN TROY COUPER

Hearing: 14 April 2025

Counsel:

M Djurich for Crown JN Olsen for Defendant

Judgment:

14 April 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. JN Olsen, Auckland.

R v COUPER [2025] NZHC 855 [14 April 2025]

Introduction

[1] Darren Couper, you are for sentence on one charge of injuring with intent to injure.1 The background is unusual in that the charge was originally wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. You were found guilty of that charge. However, the Court of Appeal quashed your conviction and ordered a re-trial.2 On 28 March this year, the Crown filed this charge rather than that in relation to which you were found guilty. On 2 April this year, you pleaded guilty.

The facts

[2] The facts are also unusual. On 16 August 2022, you and two other men were at home. The three of you were smoking methamphetamine in the basement. At approximately 9.16 that evening, Kevin Hay came to the home. You knew Mr Hay. He had experience in martial arts, as did you and one of the other two men present, Peter Greene.

[3] Mr Hay fought you on his arrival. Initially, he had the upper hand. You then gained the advantage. You were straddling Mr Hay, who was lying prone on his back.

[4] You repeatedly struck him to the head. By repeatedly, I mean not fewer than 35 times. However, the agreed summary of facts makes it clear that some of your violence was in self-defence. Indeed, the agreed summary confines your offending to 10 blows to Mr Hay’s head, that you twice stomped Mr Hay’s hand; and finally, that you kicked Mr Hay to the head. He was then barely able to move.

[5] It follows I must sentence you on an unusual basis, but one to which the Crown has given its blessing. It is not for me to interfere with this arrangement, even though it presents as somewhat artificial. To compound matters, unknown to you, Mr Greene stabbed Mr Hay during your struggle with him. That wound caused Mr Hay’s death. But, Mr Greene was found not guilty of both murder and manslaughter at the trial at which you were found guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2).
2 Couper v R [2024] NZCA 663.

[6] Mr Hay sustained significant injuries to his face and head but, as the agreed summary records, it is not possible to determine which of these is attributable to your blows comprising the offence. It is sufficient to observe you injured Mr Hay (with intent to injure him) by striking him 10 times to the head, and also kicking him once to the head. You then went on to assault a police officer, but that conviction and sentence were not…

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 Couper

Details

AGLC: R v Couper [2025] NZHC 855
Case: [2025] NZHC 855
Decision Date: 14 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Darren Troy Couper was sentenced for the offence of injuring with intent to injure. Originally, Couper was charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, for which he was found guilty. However, the Court of Appeal quashed this conviction and ordered a retrial. The Crown subsequently filed a charge of injuring with intent to injure, to which Couper pleaded guilty. The facts of the case are unusual, as they involve a violent altercation between Couper and Kevin Hay, during which Couper inflicted multiple blows to Hay's head, including 10 strikes and one kick, while Hay was unable to defend himself. Although some of the violence was in self-defence, Couper continued to assault Hay after he was no longer a threat. The court was required to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the Crown's argument that the case falls within band 2 of the Court of Appeal's guideline judgment, and the defence's argument for a lower starting point. The court also needed to assess the value of Couper's guilty plea and consider mitigating factors, such as his waiver of a pre-sentence report, time spent on electronically monitored bail, and the fact that he had already served the proposed sentence. After careful consideration, the court adopted the Crown's starting point and deducted 20% for the guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of 19 months' imprisonment. However, as Couper had already served that time, no additional penalty was imposed.

The court found that Couper's violent actions against Hay were serious and gratuitous, and that his self-defence claims did not mitigate the severity of his assault. The court rejected the defence's arguments for a lower starting point, a higher discount for the guilty plea, and the granting of a conviction and discharge due to the unusual circumstances of the case. Instead, the court imposed a sentence of 19 months' imprisonment, acknowledging that this outcome may disappoint the victims, but emphasising that Couper was being sentenced for the offence of injuring with intent to injure, not for the death of Kevin Hay. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the gravity of an offender's actions, even in cases where there are mitigating factors or unusual circumstances.

Orders