Kopara v The Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility - [2012] NZHC 2423

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-4966 [2012] NZHC 2423

BETWEEN DENNIS KOPARA Applicant

ANDTHE MANAGER, MT EDEN CORRECTIONS FACILITY Respondent

Hearing: 27 August 2012

Counsel: M Kan for the Applicant
M Harborow for the Respondent

Judgment: 27 August 2012

Reasons: 29 August 2012

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 August 2012 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, PO Box 2213, Auckland 1140
Michael Kan Law, PO Box 105228, Auckland 1143

KOPARA V THE MANAGER, MT EDEN CORRECTIONS FACILITY HC AK CIV-2012-404-4966 [27 August
2012]

[1] On 21 August 2012 Mr Kopara was sentenced in the Auckland District Court by Judge Wilson QC to 12 months’ imprisonment on six charges involving the unlawful getting into and/or taking various motor vehicles between December 2011 and January 2012. Mr Kopara is presently incarcerated at Mt Eden Corrections Facility. On Thursday 23 August he applied for relief pursuant to the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, and his application was heard by me at 2.15 pm on Monday 27 August
2012. At the end of the hearing I declined the application and said that my reasons would follow. These are my reasons.

Background

[2] On 11 January 2011 Mr Kopara was charged with:

(a) One charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle under s 226 of the

Crimes Act 1961;

(b)One charge of attempting to unlawfully take a motor vehicle under s 226 of the Crimes Act 1961;

(c) One charge of possession of instruments for conversion under s 227 of the Crimes Act 1961;

(d) One charge of driving while disqualified under s 32(1)(a) and s 32(4)

of the Land Transport Act 1998.

[3] These charges related to events that had occurred immediately prior to the charges being laid, ie in early January 2012. Mr Kopara was remanded in custody and has remained there since.

[4] In April 2012 another charge of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle under s 226 was laid. A further charge, in relation to the taking of another car in December
2011, was laid in July 2012. Both these charges related to events in late December

2011. The two vehicles involved in the December offending were different from the vehicle involved in the January offending although, for reasons that will become

apparent, Mr Kan for Mr Kopara characterised what occurred in late December and

early January as one continuous offending “spree”.

[5] By the time Mr Kopara pled guilty to the first four earlier charges, the two further charges had also been laid. The sentencing hearing in relation to these first four charges was then combined with a status hearing for the two later charges. At the hearing, counsel for Mr Kopara asked the Court to give a sentencing indication on the assumption that Mr Kopara was also to plead to the two outstanding charges. Judge Wilson QC indicated that the starting point for a sentence on…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kopara v The Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NZHC 2423
Decision Date: 27 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kopara v The Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility, Dennis Kopara sought habeas corpus relief to challenge his continued detention following a 12-month imprisonment sentence. The applicant argued that the pre-sentence detention time should be counted towards his sentence, entitling him to immediate release. The legal issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 91 of the Parole Act 2002, which outlines the calculation of pre-sentence detention, and whether the time spent in custody before sentencing on related charges should be considered. The court had to decide whether the separate charges faced by Kopara, though similar in nature, constituted related proceedings under the statute. The court ultimately found that the separate charges and the distinct factual underpinnings for each justified treating them as separate proceedings, thus denying Kopara's application for habeas corpus relief.

The court rejected the argument that the charges should be considered as part of a single continuous "spree," noting the differences in the factual basis and timing of the events. It also dismissed the contention that the calculation of pre-sentence detention was a matter solely for judicial review, ruling that habeas corpus proceedings could address such issues if they were susceptible to summary determination. The court concluded that the statutory language of Section 91 did not support the broad interpretation proposed by Kopara's counsel, leading to the denial of the habeas corpus application. Kopara's continued detention was upheld, as the court found no basis to interfere with the calculation of his pre-sentence detention period.

Orders