R v Couper - [2013] NZHC 1576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-043-2338 [2013] NZHC 1576

THE QUEEN

v

NATHAN JAMES COUPER

Hearing: 27 June 2013

Counsel: J Mooney for Crown
T Bolstad for Prisoner

Sentence: 27 June 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] Mr Couper, you appear for sentence following pre-trial pleas of guilty to the following charges:

(a) conspiracy to supply methamphetamine;1

(b) conspiracy to supply cocaine;2

(c) participation in an organised criminal group;3

(d) conspiracy to supply class C ecstasy;4

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and s 6(2A)(a).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and s 6(2A)(a).
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and s 6(2A)(c).

R v COUPER [2013] NZHC 1576 [27 June 2013]

(e) conspiracy to sell cannabis;5

(f) cultivation of cannabis6 and

(g) being party to theft of electricity.7

[2] On 22 May I gave you a pre-trial sentencing indication pursuant to s 61(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. On 30 May you accepted that indication and you pleaded guilty before Miller J.

Facts

[3] You are 39 years old. You come from a good family. They are in farming. You yourself have held responsible positions as a farm manager during your recent life. You are, I am told, the great great grandson of Te Whiti O Rongomai, the spiritual leader of Parihaka. You yourself became chairman of the Parihaka X Farm Trust, an election said to reflect your perceived strategic abilities. You have raised significant money to restore Parihaka Pa.

[4] Although you have a supporting family, including your wife, your life took three unfortunate turns. First, you resigned your farm managers’s role in Piopio because of depression at the effects of drought. Secondly, you returned to New Plymouth, in the expectation of a new farm management role in some iwi-owned farms. But that did not eventuate. Thirdly, you purchased a bar called The Powder Room. It did not prosper.

[5] It is clear from the intercepted communications in Operation Puff, many of which I have heard at the recent trial of your co-offenders, that your life was out of control at this point. You accept that during this time you were consuming significant quantities of ecstasy and alcohol. You became estranged from your wife, who plainly has had no involvement in your offending. When it became clear what
you were doing, she told you to go. We heard that conversation played at the trial.

5    Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and s 6(2A)(c).
6    Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9(1).
7      Crimes Act ss 219(a), 223(c) and 66.

Your behaviour was at times bizarre. It was certainly unguarded, and the unravelling of your life and the associated drug-dealing you fell into was inevitable. Not least because your behaviour was bound to come to the attention of the police. And so it did.

[6] The relevant offending all occurred within a three and a…

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 [2013] NZHC 1576
Case: [2013] NZHC 1576
Decision Date: 27 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Couper involved Nathan James Couper who was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry. Couper was found guilty of various drug-related offences, including conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, cocaine, and class C ecstasy, participation in an organised criminal group, conspiracy to sell cannabis, cultivation of cannabis, and being a party to the theft of electricity. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for each of these charges and whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. The legal issues involved assessing the culpability of Couper's role in the drug conspiracies, determining the starting point for each charge, and applying the appropriate discounts for factors such as a guilty plea, remorse, and intent to rehabilitate.

The court began by assessing the lead offence, which was the conspiracy to supply methamphetamine. The court considered the guidelines for such offences and the level of culpability of the accused. The court found that while the conspiracy had not resulted in the actual supply of drugs, it was close to execution and warranted a significant penalty. The court applied a reduction to the starting point due to the incipient stage of the conspiracy but rejected the submission that the prospect of obtaining the quantities discussed was unrealistic. The court then considered the other charges and applied uplifts to the starting point to account for the additional offending. The court also assessed mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, remorse, and intent to rehabilitate, applying discounts accordingly. The court rejected the Crown's submission for a minimum period of imprisonment, deciding that Couper's clean record prior to the offending did not warrant such a term. The final sentence imposed was five years and five months' imprisonment to be served concurrently for all charges.

Orders