R v Kupe - [2025] NZHC 769

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…

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 Kupe

Details

AGLC: R v Kupe [2025] NZHC 769
Case: [2025] NZHC 769
Decision Date: 3 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Manuhuia Kupe and Ms. Miria Thompson were sentenced following their guilty pleas to various charges, including attempted murder, assault, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The charges stemmed from two separate incidents involving two victims, with Mr. Kupe as the primary perpetrator and Ms. Thompson as his accomplice.

The primary legal issues before the court were determining the appropriate starting points for sentencing on each set of charges and applying relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The court had to consider the nature and severity of the offending, the culpability of each defendant, and any personal factors that might influence the sentencing.

The court determined that the second set of charges, involving attempted murder and the use of a vehicle as a weapon, were significantly more serious than the first set. The starting point for the second set of charges was set at ten years’ imprisonment due to the unprovoked and violent nature of the offending, as well as the serious injuries inflicted on the victim. For the first set of charges, a starting point of two years’ imprisonment was deemed appropriate. The court then applied various discounts for factors such as early guilty pleas and personal mitigating circumstances, including Mr. Kupe’s troubled upbringing, addiction issues, and expressed remorse. This resulted in an effective sentence of seven years and eight months for Mr. Kupe. Ms. Thompson, being less culpable, received a starting point of two years six months’ imprisonment for her role in the second set of charges and an additional uplift for her involvement in the first set of charges. After applying discounts, her sentence was reduced to twenty months’ imprisonment, which was converted to home detention considering her limited criminal history and role as a caregiver for her young daughter.

The final orders of the court were that Mr. Kupe was sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment for attempted murder, with additional concurrent sentences for the other charges, and a two-year driving disqualification upon release. Ms. Thompson was sentenced to ten months’ home detention for each charge, to be served concurrently.

Orders