Guest Post: Sentencing reform for coward-punch manslaughter requires more than a new label

A guest post from the Sensible Sentencing Trust:

The October sentencing of Daytona Thompson in the High Court at New Plymouth has  reignited debate about how New Zealand responds to single-punch killings.

Thompson fatally struck Daniel Nganeko outside the Tukapa Rugby and Sports Club in  July 2025. There was no provocation. The blow caused Nganeko to fall backwards and suffer catastrophic head injuries. He died three days later in Auckland City Hospital.

Justice Paul Radich adopted a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment. However, after applying discounts for a guilty plea, youth, background factors and the impact of imprisonment on Thompson’s child, the final sentence was four years and two months. 

Under current parole rules, eligibility arises after one-third of the sentence has been served. In practical terms, that means Thompson can seek parole by the end of this year.

The case highlights a structural issue within New Zealand’s sentencing framework that manslaughter carries no statutory minimum term of imprisonment. While the maximum penalty is life, actual sentences vary widely and are heavily influenced by discounts.

The result is that in cases involving a single fatal punch, the effective time served can be very short.

Single-punch deaths, also called Cowards Punch, are almost always prosecuted as manslaughter because the Crown cannot prove intent to kill. But, the absence of intent does not alter the outcome for the victim or their family. A life has been taken in violent circumstances.

Under section 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002, murder carries a mandatory life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years, but manslaughter has no equivalent sentencing floor. Full discretion is in the hands of judges to set starting points and apply mitigating factors and Justice Radich made clear in this case that he was required to apply the law as it stands and could not take into account community sentiment or proposed legislative changes.

Those proposed changes refer to the Crimes Amendment Bill currently before Parliament. It proposes to introduce a specific designation for coward-punch manslaughter. However, it does not alter sentencing ranges, introduce mandatory minimums, or adjust parole eligibility provisions. In practical terms, the reform is not worth the paper it is written on.

All victim advocates like the Sensible Sentencing Trust are asking for is that the Government at least bring our sentencing up to the same levels of comparable international jurisdictions. In Australian jurisdictions such as Victoria and New South Wales, legislative reforms over the past decade have addressed single-punch deaths directly. 

Courts in those jurisdictions frequently impose total sentences in the range of 10 to 11 years for aggravated one-punch killings, with non-parole periods commonly set around six or seven years.

Proponents of judicial discretion argue that mandatory minimums risk rigidity and injustice in individual cases. But, Parliament regularly sets statutory baselines for serious offending when it considers certain conduct to warrant consistent denunciation and deterrence. 

Murder is the clearest example. The Government’s return of the three strikes regime, despite amendments, reflects similar legislative intent.

The issue, therefore, is not whether Parliament can set minimum non-parole periods for particular forms of manslaughter. It clearly can. The issue is whether it chooses to do so in the case of Coward Punches causing death.

The Coalition Government campaigned on strengthening law-and-order responses and restoring public confidence in the justice system. The current Bill signals recognition that single-punch deaths have become a distinct category of concern. However, without changes to sentencing parameters, the practical impact will be negligible.

Justice Radich’s remarks illustrate the constitutional boundary. Judges apply the law and Parliament defines it. If sentencing outcomes are viewed as disproportionate, the responsibility for reform lies with legislators, not the judiciary.

NZ First and ACT have both historically supported firmer sentencing in cases involving serious violence. Their influence within the current parliamentary arrangement gives them the ability to press for amendments to the Bill to give it some teeth.

Sensible Sentencing Trust says they can do this by establishing a statutory minimum non-parole period for unprovoked single-punch killings of 8 years imprisonment, being two years less than the present mandatory minimum term for murder, 10 years.  

Reasonable people can differ on whether the mandatory minimum for a Coward Punch causing death should be 8 years or something a little less.  But, without Parliament clearly laying it out at law, the Judiciary cannot impose measurably firmer sentencing.

The present framework leaves a clear gap between public expectations and sentencing outcomes. Introducing a new label without modifying the sentencing architecture risks reinforcing that gap rather than resolving it.

The purpose of sentencing, under section 7 of the Sentencing Act, includes holding offenders accountable, denouncing conduct, deterring similar offending, protecting the community and providing for rehabilitation. The weight assigned to each purpose is ultimately a legislative choice reflected in statutory structure.

But, if Parliament intends to signal stronger denunciation and deterrence for coward punch killings, it must do so through substantive change, not merely tweaking the name of the offence. Legislative clarity, consistency and proportionality are central to maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system. If Parliament believes that the taking of a life through an unprovoked act of violence warrants a more substantial custodial response, the law must reflect that belief in concrete terms.

A label alone will not determine time served. Sentencing provisions will. The Government have an opportunity right now to amend their Bill and make meaningful change for victims.

Submissions on the Crimes Amendment Bill close at midnight tonight, Monday 16 February.  You can submit here:

The post Guest Post: Sentencing reform for coward-punch manslaughter requires more than a new label first appeared on Kiwiblog.