R v Kupe
[2025] NZHC 769
•3 April 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE
CRI-2024-019-1843
[2025] NZHC 769
THE KING v
MANUHUIA KUPE MIRIA THOMPSON
Hearing: 3 April 2025 Appearances:
J Hamilton for Crown
F King and M King for Mr Kupe R Brown for Ms Thompson
Sentence:
3 April 2025
SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J
Solicitors/counsel:
Hamilton Legal, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Hamilton McKenna King, Hamilton
R Brown, Barrister, Hamilton
R v KUPE & THOMPSON [2025] NZHC 769 [3 April 2025]
[1] Mr Kupe and Ms Thompson, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a variety of charges.
[2] Mr Kupe, you have pleaded guilty to two sets of charges. The first in time are charges of careless use of a motor vehicle, threatening to kill, assaulting a female and assault with a weapon. Those charges relate to an incident that occurred on 22 October 2023.
[3] The second set of charges comprises charges of attempted murder and attempting to pervert the course of justice. These relate to a further incident that occurred on 10 April 2024.
[4] The most serious charge is obviously that of attempted murder. It carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. The remaining charges carry maximum sentences of between three months’ and seven years’ imprisonment.
[5] Ms Thompson, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of assault with a weapon and attempting to pervert the course of justice. These were laid following the incident involving Mr Kupe that occurred on 10 April 2024. They carry maximum sentences of five and seven years’ imprisonment respectively.
The first set of charges – Mr Kupe only
[6] Mr Kupe, on the afternoon of 22 October 2023 you were driving a motor vehicle along the street in Ngaruawahia. The 77-year-old female victim, who was not known to you, was working in the front yard of her address. She walked across the road to dispose of some waste. You drove past her at speed, almost colliding with her. She responded by yelling at you and making an obscene gesture.
[7] You became enraged at this and stopped your vehicle. You then reversed your vehicle at speed back towards the victim. You got out of the vehicle and advanced towards her whilst telling her you would kill her. You confronted her in the entrance to her driveway and forcefully shoved her to the ground. This caused her to fall backwards, striking the back of her head against the concrete driveway. After yelling more abuse at the victim, you returned to your vehicle.
[8] You then turned the vehicle around and drove it up onto the footpath, accelerating towards where the victim was standing. She began moving backwards to avoid your vehicle but the left-hand side of it struck her a glancing blow. The impact from the vehicle thrust her against a nearby fence and caused her to fall to the ground. You then drove away.
[9] Later the same day you returned to the victim’s address and begged her forgiveness. You grabbed hold of her and would not let her go until she told you she forgave you.
[10] The victim suffered a gash to the back of her head as the result of this incident. She also suffered a sore hip that has made it difficult for her to walk. When spoken to by the police, you said you were upset after having had an argument with your family. You later told the writers of reports prepared for sentencing that you had consumed drugs that day and had little recollection of the incident.
[11] As I have noted, this incident has led to charges of threatening to kill, assaulting a female, careless driving and assaulting the victim using the vehicle.
[12] You appeared in court on the first set of charges on 10 April 2024. You understood that you would be sentenced on that date but the sentencing could not proceed. Sentencing was therefore adjourned to another date. The Judge who remanded you to that date evidently indicated that you could expect to receive a sentence of imprisonment. However, you were remanded on bail for sentence. After leaving the courthouse, you walked a short distance back to your vehicle where Ms Thompson was waiting for you. You then drove towards the Hopuhopu township, which is approximately 10 kilometres south of Huntly. You were driving the vehicle whilst Ms Thompson was the passenger.
[13] As you approached Hopuhopu you encountered the second victim, who was the first victim’s grandson. He was just 15 years of age. He was walking in a northerly direction along the road. He began crossing the road after you had passed him. You then reversed the vehicle towards him, intending to hit him. He heard you say, “You’re dead”. The victim was able to dodge your vehicle and ran back onto the footpath. You
then stopped your vehicle and asked him whether he was “Harlem”. The victim said that he was not. You then reversed your vehicle before turning it back towards him. At this point you said to him “I was gonna hit you”.
[14] The victim immediately began running away from your vehicle and initially took shelter behind a tree. As he did so, he heard you say, “You bastard” and “Harlem, you’re dead”. He kept running, looking for suitable protection from your vehicle. You then chased the victim in your vehicle and stopped next to him. You told him to stop running and said that he had “given you seven years”, obviously meaning that he had given you seven years in prison . The victim then ran away again after you began to get out of the vehicle.
[15] You got back into the vehicle and pursued the victim along the street. You drove past him and then performed a U-turn. You then accelerated towards the victim, who was standing next to a fence on a grass verge adjoining a park. Your vehicle was travelling at approximately 20 kilometres per hour when it struck the victim in the hip and leg. The collision caused the victim to fall backwards onto the ground in front of the vehicle. You then reversed the vehicle away before accelerating towards the victim again. He was endeavouring to climb over the fence as you drove the car directly into it, causing the victim to fly through the air and land on the ground.
[16] As the victim lay on the ground you drove over him, dragging him under the vehicle for several metres. You and Ms Thompson both got out of the vehicle whilst he was trapped under the front wheels. You both laughed at him before getting back into the vehicle and driving away. You performed a further U-turn and accelerated at the victim as he lay on the ground. The vehicle hit the victim again, dragging him several metres back towards the broken fence. At this stage the victim heard one of you yelling the word “Snitch”. Although the summary does not record it, it is common ground that it was Ms Thompson who called this out. Members of the public then approached the scene to help the victim, prompting you to drive off at speed. This incident led to the charges of attempted murder and assault with a weapon.
[17] Approximately 40 minutes after this incident, you, Mr Kupe, called the police on Ms Thompson’s cellphone and reported your vehicle stolen. You then abandoned
the vehicle in a rural area before being picked up by family members. Later in the evening you, Mr Kupe, provided a formal statement to the police alleging that the vehicle had been stolen.
[18] You were both arrested on 12 April 2024. When you were interviewed, Ms Thompson, you told the police that the vehicle had been stolen whilst you and Mr Kupe were visiting the grave of a deceased relative at Taupiri. You denied any knowledge of the vehicle being used to assault the victim other than to the extent that you had heard about it in the media. Later the same day, when you were being dropped back at your home, you finally admitted to the police that you had been present when the vehicle was used in the assault. You said Mr Kupe had been “seeing red”, and that you were both enraged because Mr Kupe was to be sentenced on the basis of false allegations.
[19] Mr Kupe, you were interviewed on two occasions by the police. On the first of these you maintained that your vehicle had been stolen before it was used in the assault. In the second interview you acknowledged being present at the time of the assault but said your younger sister had been driving
[20] The young victim of the second set of charges suffered extremely serious injuries as a result of the offending. He was taken to hospital in a critical condition and had to remain in intensive care for a considerable period. He suffered fractures and cuts to numerous parts of his body. The injuries he received will have ongoing, if not lifelong, consequences for him.
Starting points
[21] Mr Kupe, the events giving rise to the two sets of charges occurred at different times. I therefore propose to fix a sentence for each set of charges and then impose one cumulatively on the other. This means I will be imposing two separate sentences on you. I do not need to take that approach in sentencing you, Ms Thompson, because you are only to be sentenced on one set of charges.
[22] The first stage in the sentencing process is to fix a starting point for the sentences to be imposed on you both. This is the sentence that is appropriate having
regard to the nature of the offending. It does not, however, take into account any factors that are personal to you.
Mr Kupe
[23] Mr Kupe, the second set of charges is obviously the most serious because of the nature of the offending and the extent of injuries suffered by the victim. I therefore propose to fix a starting point for that offending first.
[24] The Crown has referred me to several sentencing authorities and says that, with one exception, the circumstances of your offending are more serious than in each of those cases.1 The Crown also notes that several of the cases it has cited related to charges involving the infliction of grievous bodily harm rather than attempted murder.
[25] The Crown contends that the aggravating features of your offending justify a starting point of nine and a half to 10 years’ imprisonment. Your counsel submits that your offending is similar to that in R v Bell, in which a starting point of eight years’ imprisonment was selected.2 However, she submits your offending is less serious than the offending in Bell because two victims were injured in that case. She contends your offending does not justify a starting point of more than six and a half years’ imprisonment. She accepts that an uplift of around 18 months is appropriate to reflect the remaining charges.
[26] I consider the offending comprising the second set of charges has several aggravating features. The first is that it was completely unprovoked. The young victim was merely walking along the road minding his own business when you decided to kill him. You did so because of your belief that he was related to the first victim and may have been a Crown witness on the first set of charges. As it transpires, he was not to be a witness in relation to those charges. You told the writer of the pre-sentence report that you had consumed cannabis and methamphetamine on the day of the offending.
1 R v Bolt HC Rotorua CRI-2009-077-1497, 28 October 2010; R v Pukeroa HC Rotorua CRI-2009- 063-000697, 10 December 2010; R v Wallis [2014] NZHC 2479; R v A [2020] NZHC 1169; R v Bell [2023] NZHC 416; R v Higgins [2024] NZHC 3500.
2 R v Bell [2023] NZHC 416 at [16].
[27] The second aggravating factor is that, although the offending was initially spontaneous, it developed quickly into a series of incidents in which you deliberately drove your vehicle into and over the victim on repeated occasions. You could have driven away from the scene at any stage, but you did not. Rather, you continued to attack the victim using your vehicle as a weapon.
[28] The offending is aggravated further by your actions in driving over the victim whilst he was lying on the ground injured. By that stage he was in a completely vulnerable state. The fact that you and Ms Thompson got out of the vehicle and laughed at the victim, who was trapped helplessly under the vehicle, also displays a degree of callousness that is not present in any of the other cases cited to me.
[29] The extremely serious injuries that your offending caused the victim is another aggravating feature of your offending. The manner in which you inflicted those injuries can also be described as the use of extreme violence.
[30] The Crown submits that, had you been charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so, the aggravating factors of the offending would have placed it at the lower end of band 3 identified by the Court of Appeal in Taueki v R.3 Offending in this band calls for a starting point of between nine and 14 years’ imprisonment.4 Your counsel submits that it would fall within band 2, for which a starting point of five to ten years’ imprisonment is appropriate.5
[31] I consider your offending is considerably more serious than that in R v Bell, the case relied upon by your counsel. Although that case involved two victims, they were both injured at the same time when the offender drove his vehicle at them. The offender in that case did not go on to repeatedly drive his vehicle at the victims.
[32] I also accept the Crown’s submission that, in terms of the bands identified in R v Taueki, the aggravating features of your offending place it at the lower end of band 3. I bear in mind, however, that you have pleaded guilty to attempted murder, which is a more serious charge than intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm. The
3 R v Taueki [2005] NZCA 174, [2005] 3 NZLR 372.
4 At [34(c)].
5 At [34(b)]
charge of attempted murder requires an actual intention to kill rather than to just cause grievous bodily harm. Taking these factors into account I consider a starting point of ten years’ imprisonment is appropriate on the second set of charges. This is sufficient to also encompass the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
[33] The Crown suggests a sentence of around 12 months’ imprisonment is appropriate to reflect the offending on the first set of charges once totality principles are taken into account. Your counsel suggests a starting point on those charges of around 18 months’ imprisonment.
[34] On a standalone basis I consider the offending comprising the first set of charges would easily attract a starting point of at least three years’ imprisonment. You pursued and attacked an elderly victim both by shoving her to the ground and then using your vehicle as a weapon to strike her with. You did this even though she was a complete stranger because you were enraged at her understandable response to your careless driving. I note again that you told the writer of the pre-sentence report that you were high on methamphetamine when you committed this offence.
[35] Even having regard to totality principles, I consider a sentence of two years’ imprisonment is appropriate on the first set of charges.
Ms Thompson
[36] Ms Thompson, you are obviously far less culpable than Mr Kupe because you were not the driver of the vehicle in the incident giving rise to the second set of charges. You pleaded guilty on the basis that you were a party to the use of the vehicle as a weapon by encouraging Mr Kupe to act in the way he did. Your complicity is reflected in the fact that you got out of the car with him and laughed at the victim as he lay severely injured under the vehicle. You then called out to him that he was a “snitch” shortly after you got back into the vehicle. You then went on to lie to the police about the vehicle having been stolen.
[37] I agree with your counsel that your limited role in the charge of using the vehicle as a weapon means that the lead, or most serious, charge that you face is that of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Other sentencing authorities are only of
limited assistance because this type of offence can be committed in many different ways. Typically, however, offending such as this attracts a starting point of around two years’ imprisonment. In your case, I select a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment.
[38] On a standalone basis your involvement in the offending that comprises the charge of assault with a weapon would also attract a starting point of around 18 months’ imprisonment. Having regard to totality principles, however, I propose to apply an uplift of 12 months to reflect that charge. This means the sentence to be imposed on you before taking into account factors personal to you is two years six months’ imprisonment.
Aggravating factors
Mr Kupe
[39] Mr Kupe, an obvious aggravating factor in relation to the second set of charges is the fact that it occurred when you were on bail after having pleaded guilty to the first set of charges. The offending comprising the second set of charges was also very similar in nature to the offences for which you were already on bail. I consider this requires an uplift of six months on the sentence to be imposed on the second set of charges.
[40] Although you have some previous convictions, the Crown accepts they do not justify an uplift. I agree.
Ms Thompson
[41] Ms Thompson, you have no previous convictions. No uplift is required to reflect aggravating factors personal to you.
Mitigating factors
Mr Kupe
[42] Mr Kupe, you are obviously entitled to a discount to reflect the fact that you entered guilty pleas to the charges, albeit in the face of a very strong Crown case. The
entry of guilty pleas amounts to an acknowledgement of your wrongdoing. Importantly, it also saved both victims the trauma of having to give evidence at a contested trial.
[43] In addition, you appeared before this Court for the first time on 3 September 2024. This occurred after the Crown became responsible for the prosecution and substituted the charge of attempted murder for a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so. You then entered guilty pleas just three months later on 10 December 2024. I take those to be the early entry of guilty pleas. I am satisfied you are entitled to a discount of 25 per cent on each set of charges to reflect your guilty pleas.
[44] Your counsel also seeks discounts totalling 50 per cent to reflect other mitigating factors. These include your remorse, addiction issues from which you suffered at the time of the offending and other mitigating factors identified in reports that have been provided for sentencing purposes.
[45] You undoubtedly suffered a troubled upbringing after your father died when you were just three years of age. At or about this time, you began living with your grandparents and ceased to have any meaningful contact with your mother. This has caused considerable issues for you that still exist today. These were exacerbated by events that occurred whilst you were living with your grandparents. During this period, you were exposed to the excessive and regular use of alcohol and drugs. Violence and different forms of abuse were also a feature of the household. You were one of the victims of the abuse that occurred during this period.
[46] As so often happens in situations like this, you began to accept that violence and other forms of abuse were the norm. You began drinking and taking drugs at a very early age. You eventually became a binge drinker and would regularly consume very large quantities of alcohol on a daily basis. You also consumed drugs on a regular basis, including cannabis and methamphetamine.
[47] What is more surprising in your case is that, despite encountering difficulties at school because of your conduct, you nevertheless did quite well. You were able to
acquire NCEA level 3 qualifications in several subjects and in this regard you differ significantly from many persons who appear before the court.
[48] After you left school you were also able to hold down responsible jobs for considerable periods. However, the regular and excessive consumption of alcohol and drugs ultimately compromised your ability to hold down a job. You ceased working approximately 18 months before the first of the incidents giving rise to the present charges. You say that during this period, and notwithstanding the fact that you were unemployed, your consumption of alcohol and drugs increased markedly.
[49] I have the benefit of two reports prepared by consultant psychiatrists. They provide markedly similar findings. They recount the issues you encountered in your childhood whilst living with your grandparents, and the extent to which the consumption of alcohol and drugs has affected your life. They consider you have a severe addiction to both drugs and alcohol and that this has been caused in large part by the issues that you confronted in your childhood and adolescence.
[50] The psychiatrists also note, however, that you have strengths. These include your demonstrated ability to take advantage of educational opportunities and to hold down steady employment. You also have family support and are closely connected to your culture. They describe the benefits you have derived from the drug and alcohol programme you have completed whilst in prison. You have also expressed what the psychiatrists believe to be genuine remorse for your offending. In addition, you have expressed a desire to better yourself and to be a good father to your four-year-old child. Finally, you have expressed interest in engaging in a restorative justice process with the victims of your offending. Understandably, however, they were not prepared to participate in this.
[51] Both psychiatrists emphasise that you have been limited in your ability to deal with adversity in your life. This is an impairment related to your childhood difficulties, including damaged attachment issues, as well as those arising from the abuse you have suffered. They say that your difficulty in coping, poor emotional regulation, anger, impulsivity and substance dependence are all factors that contributed to the offending.
They also say that these issues nevertheless provide opportunities for further therapeutic intervention in the future.
[52] I accept that the issues the psychiatrists have identified are all causative factors in your offending. Your counsel submits that I should provide you with a discount of 20 per cent to reflect your addiction issues, 20 per cent to reflect other factors identified in the psychiatrists’ reports and 10 per cent for your remorse and willingness to participate in the restorative justice process.
[53] However, I consider it would be artificial and arbitrary to apply separate discounts in this way. All these issues are closely interwoven, and there is a distinct risk of double counting if discounts are applied separately. Instead, I propose to apply a global discount of 15 per cent on each set of charges to reflect these factors.
[54] This means I will apply a total discount of 40 per cent to each set of charges. The discount applies to the starting point selected for each set of charges. It does not apply to the uplift on the second set of charges to reflect the fact that you committed those offences whilst on bail awaiting sentence on the first set of charges.
[55] Applying these discounts, the sentence on the first set of charges is reduced to six and a half years’ imprisonment whilst the sentence on the second set of charges is reduced to 14 months’ imprisonment. This means you will be required to serve an effective sentence of seven years eight months’ imprisonment.
[56] It will be for the Parole Board to determine when you should be released. Given the fact that you have relatively few previous convictions, I do not propose to impose a minimum term of imprisonment.
Sentence
Mr Kupe
[57]If you would stand now Mr Kupe.
[58] Mr Kupe, you are sentenced to six years six months’ imprisonment on the charge of attempted murder. You are to serve a cumulative sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment on the charge of using the vehicle as a weapon.
[59]On the remaining charges I impose the following concurrent sentences:
(a)On the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice — six months’ imprisonment.
(b)On the charge of careless use of a motor vehicle — one month imprisonment.
(c)On the charge of threatening to kill — two months’ imprisonment.
(d)On the charge of assaulting a female — six months’ imprisonment.
[60] You are disqualified from driving for a period of two years from the date upon which you are released from prison.
[61]Mr Kupe, you can stand down.
Ms Thompson
[62] Ms Thompson, from the starting point of two years six months’ imprisonment I allow a discount of six months, or 20 per cent, to reflect your guilty pleas. You are also entitled to credit to reflect the fact that at 28 years of age you have no previous convictions. I reduce the sentence by four months to reflect that fact. These discounts reduce the sentence to one of 20 months’ imprisonment.
[63] Your counsel points out that you and Mr Kupe have a four-year-old daughter for whom you will now be the sole caregiver. I also consider that your association with Mr Kupe has been the primary driver of your offending. His absence in the future and your lack of previous convictions mean you are unlikely to pose a realistic threat of further offending. I also note that you have undertaken rehabilitative efforts whilst
you have been awaiting sentence. I am therefore satisfied that it is appropriate to convert your sentence to one of home detention.
[64] The pre-sentence report confirms that you have an address at which you could serve an electronically monitored sentence.
[65]Ms Thompson if you would stand.
[66] On each charge you are sentenced to ten months’ home detention to be served at the address referred to the pre-sentence report. You are to serve that sentence on the conditions set out in that report.
[67]Stand down.
Lang J
0
5
0