Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


Judgment: Kapa v R

[Full judgment: SC_114_2011__James_Kapa_v_R.pdf]


Supreme Court of New Zealand

20 December 2012

MEDIA RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION

JAMES JOSEPH KAPA v THE QUEEN

(SC 114/2011)

[2012 ] NZSC 119

PRESS SUMMARY

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz.

On 2 December 2007 James Kapa, the appellant, and Ronald van Wakeren burgled the National Army Museum at Waiouru and stole 96 gallantry medals worth over $5 million. Two members of the public, Lord Ashcroft and Mr Tom Sturgess, offered a substantial award of up to $300,000 for the return of these medals. The Commissioner of Police administered the award. Messrs Kapa and van Wakeren handed over the medals anonymously, through their lawyer, to the Commissioner. In return, Mr Kapa received $100,000 and Mr van Wakeren received $100,000. Messrs Kapa and van Wakeren were eventually arrested for and charged with burglary of the museum. Both pleaded guilty. Mr van Wakeren repaid his share of the reward but Mr Kapa did not. The District Court Judge imposed on Mr Kapa both a sentence of imprisonment and a sentence of reparation of $100,000, being the reward amount that Mr Kapa received. The issue for the Supreme Court was whether Lord Ashcroft and Mr Sturgess, as the reward donors, were persons for whose benefit a sentence of reparation could be made under s 32 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The Supreme Court has held, by a majority comprising Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young and Chambers JJ, that the donors of the reward were not persons for whose benefit a sentence of reparation could be made. Only victims, as defined in s 4 of the Sentencing Act, can be the recipients of a sentence of reparation under s 32(1). Specifically, a person who is not himself or herself a victim cannot recover for loss or damage consequential on a victim’s loss of or damage to property under s 32(1)(c). Reward donors do not, by their payments, make themselves victims. The loss suffered by reward donors cannot be considered direct loss under s 32(1)(a) or consequential loss under s 32(1)(c). Nor can the Commissioner of Police recover reward money by way of a sentence of reparation. The costs he incurs are part of his investigative expenses. However, it may be possible to recover the reward amount from Mr Kapa under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

Glazebrook J dissents. She would have held that reward donors have suffered a direct loss under s 32(1)(a), if not consequential loss under s 32(1)(c).

In accordance with the views of the majority, the appeal is accordingly allowed and the sentence of reparation is quashed.


[Full judgment: SC_114_2011__James_Kapa_v_R.pdf]

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

PARLIAMENT TODAY:

Arming Police: Frontline Police To Routinely Carry Tasers

"In making the decision, the Police executive has considered almost five years worth of 'use of force' data… It consistently shows that the Taser is one of the least injury-causing tactical options available when compared with other options, with a subject injury rate of just over one per cent for all deployments." More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On D-Day For Dairy At The TPP

While New Zealand may feel flattered at being called “the Saudi Arabia of milk” it would be more accurate to regard us as the suicide bombers of free trade. More>>

ALSO:

Leaked Letter: Severe Restrictions on State Owned Enterprises

Even an SOE that exists to fulfil a public function neglected by the market or which is a natural monopoly would nevertheless be forced to act "on the basis of commercial considerations" and would be prohibited from discriminating in favour of local businesses in purchases and sales. Foreign companies would be given standing to sue SOEs in domestic courts for perceived departures from the strictures of the TPP... More>>

ALSO:

"Gutted" Safety Bill: Time To Listen To Workplace Victims’ Families

Labour has listened to the families of whose loved ones have been killed at work and calls on other political parties to back its proposals to make workplaces safer and prevent unnecessary deaths on the job. More>>

ALSO:

Regulators: Govt To ‘Crowd-Source’ Regulatory Advice

A wide-ranging set of reforms is to be implemented to shake up the way New Zealand government agencies develop, write and implement regulations. More>>

ALSO:

Board Appointments: Some Minister Appoint Less The 3 In 10 Women

“It’s 2015 not 1915: Ministers who appoint less than 3 in 10 women to their boards must do better, they have no excuse but to do better,” said Dr Blue. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The 1990s Retro Proposals For Our Health System

As we learned yesterday, the reviews propose that the democratically elected representation on DHBs should be reduced, such that community wishes will be able to be over-ridden by political appointees. In today’s revelations, the reviews also propose a return to the destructive competitive health model of the 1990s. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news