Not guilty verdict in Waihopai case

[Dave Homewood]

Does anyone else feel that the jury giving a not-guilty verdict in the case of the three greenies who broke into and severely damaged the Waihopai communications base is totally irresponsible?

This would surely set a precedent that such protesters can now break into any military base and attack whatever equipment they want, admit they did it (as in this case), say it was to prevent someone else possibly getting harmed by said military, and getting off scot free.

I'm persoanlly not entirely comfortable with the USA's activities at Waihopai but such illegal actions by these idiots should have been punished. I don't see any difference in attacking the dish and causing over a million dollars worth of damage, and attacking a LAV or an Orion. All three might someday cause someone to die in war, which is what their case was that got them off. Totally crazy.

[ox]

I can now see the precedent to beat the crap out of any protester you come across because you believe goverment property may be harmed by that individual some day.

They set the precedent.

[lumpy]

I find this just totally unbelievable !! All political arguements asside , so its now ok to go damage someones million dollar property ? Guess that precedent should help out those farmers who dont like power pylons over their property - they can now just go cut them down ( because of the health risks ) . Total spupidity at its finest !!

[skyhawkdon]

An appalling decision - did they hand pick the jury or something? I hope the crown appeals this. Otherwise it sets an ugly precedent.

You are right Dave - this could have been an Orion or any other Defence or Government owned property, I don't see the difference. We must be the laughing stock of the western world (yet again!)

[Dave Homewood]

Two of the three hillbilly idiots who got away with this came on Campbell Live last night to sanctmoniously boast about their freedom. I think it's sick that the media gives them any airtime and I quickly switched it off. Now that they have this publicity other fools will start following them, and what will it lead to next? I'll bet the yanks would have charged them with terrorism if they had their way - I mean terrorists in Iraq attack military covoys because they have the potential of harming their citizens. What's the difference?

[yak2]

Weren't these dimwits tresspassing in the first case? Just because public property was damaged does not lessen the crime. This decision sets a dangerous precedent. A RAAF C17 has already been vandalised in NZ. As a taxpayer I question why we should risk sending FA/18's for the Wanaka airshow.
BTW. Don't think legal clangers like this are a uniquely NZ thing. There is an epidemic of penalising the victims in the Victorian court system at the moment.

[corsair67]

A RAAF C17 has already been vandalised in NZ. As a taxpayer I question why we should risk sending FA/18's for the Wanaka airshow.

I reckon the RAAF should bring some ADGs with them; and they're just itching to shoot to kill!

[stu]

Mar 18, 2010 9:23:28 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

I think it's sick that the media gives them any airtime and I quickly switched it off.

And people wonder why I want a change in career

[stu]

Actually, come to think of it - there's probably a way to use this defence in any situation then.

Take the pylon issue as mentioned by lumpy and try this scenario - "I blew up the power pylons because they transport electricity which can be used to power installations like Waihopai which may lead to the evil United States Military hurting innocent civilians in some far off land".

Using the "logic" applied in the case in question, you should get off with no conviction whatsoever.


Stop the planet, I want to get off!

[Dave Homewood]

Worryingly, I heard on the Radio New Zealand National news today that other protest and lobby groups such as animal rights people and anti-abortionists are overjoyed because they can now re-look at the way they go about making political points and getting away with breaking the law in the process.

Also worryingly the news said the Crown probably won't be appealing the decision.

[ErrolC]

Mar 18, 2010 14:20:13 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Worryingly, I heard on the Radio New Zealand National news today that other protest and lobby groups such as animal rights people and anti-abortionists are overjoyed because they can now re-look at the way they go about making political points and getting away with breaking the law in the process.

Also worryingly the news said the Crown probably won't be appealing the decision.

That is contradicted by what is in this Herald article, which actually appears useful. It's just a legal opinion of course.

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10632804

"...
The unlawful action of damaging a spy base led to no conviction because, in the eyes of the jury, the perpetrators had made a genuine mistake and had believed they had a legal defence.

It would be impossible for the men to get away with the same act again, as the trial had made it clear to them it had been unlawful, said Law Society criminal law sub-committee convenor Jonathan Krebs.

Given the publicity about the case, it would be hard for future defendants to claim they genuinely - and mistakenly - thought a "greater good" defence justified criminal activities, Mr Krebs said.
..."

[Dave Homewood]

I think the biggest thing against this defence working again in a court is the odds against another 12 Green Party supporting village idiots being selectd for the jury.

[Deane B]

I've had to bite my tongue for the last 24 hours as I have been pretty annoyed with that decision. I'm pleased to say my 9 and 12 year olds at least know whats right and wrong and think the fact they were let off is silly. So what does that tell you about the defence and the Jury and I think, to a certain degree the judge - for the way he instructed the jury to consider the argument.
I'm glad to live in a free country and I have no issue with the Kaftan wearing fraternity protesting - thats any body's right and what they believe in is up to them. BUT - vandalism and trespass is completely separate issue.
I only live 12 km away from the domes and I have to say that I have never met anybody has an issue with the Base being there. SO if the sandal wearing Hippies really want to make a point, why don't they put their lentils on the line and sod off overseas and protest in Afghanistan or Iraq or the US where people might care - Yeah right!
All I can say is I am glad one of them (a teacher) does not teach my kids, because I'd want him (nay - I'd have him) removed immediately.
Tonights news has also stated that an appeal may be forthcoming. And rightly so, as it does not bode well for furthering relations with the US or visiting foreign forces. I wonder what security options the Aussies will be wanting if they are bringing F18's out. Time to remind people that Defence Areas are just that and it is illegal to be there unauthorised.

[skyhawkdon]

Mar 18, 2010 6:30:15 GMT 12 lumpy said:

I find this just totally unbelievable !! All political arguements asside , so its now ok to go damage someones million dollar property ? Guess that precedent should help out those farmers who dont like power pylons over their property - they can now just go cut them down ( because of the health risks ) . Total spupidity at its finest !!

Spot on Lumpy. I work for the SOE in question and this decision has set off alarm bells big time for us. It has set a very dangerous precedent. The Attorney General should be initiating the appeal on behalf of all sensible and law abiding New Zealanders.

[obiwan27]

Our 'friend' Mr Minto is as you'd expect overjoyed at this stupid decision. It should most definitely be appealed. Interesting to note that the comments to his article are heavily against the verdict and quite rightly so.

www.stuff.co.nz/business/blogs/frontline

[flyjoe180]

Shocking result. Why not burn down the local TAB, because it is an evil place where money which could otherwise be donated to third world nations, is being squandered. The options for trespassing and vandalising places deemed to be used for 'evil' purposes are endless now.

[FlyingKiwi]

An awful decision - their claim that they were "protecting" people by doing this damage is ludicrous, as far as I can see the people most likely to be "protected" by knocking the domes out of commission are terrorists and criminals, not your everyday law abiding citizen! I can only assume that due to the theoretically random nature of the jury, in this case it must have just been comprised of lunatics.

I just hope this doesn't set a trend.

[Dave Homewood]

You have to wonder how many people have been harmed in the course of the outage of the facility, considering they are there to protect the public at large, not harm them, as these clowns claim. It's because of facilities like this that we here on the news of planned bomb attacks being foiled before they happen.

[lumpy]

In tonights paper , it says the judge issued a " reserved descion " , which it seems , means they were found not guilty based on the defence they presented ,HOWEVER the descion was reserved on a point of law , which may be questioned by either the defendant OR the prosecutor at a later date . What this means is that they can effectivly be re-arrested , and re-tried on exactly the same charge . The point of law it was reserved on was the "claim of right " ( ie , their whole defence ) !
Lets just hope the judge wanted the final descion to be made at a higher level than his ( court of appeal ), and hope they make the right choice ( re-trial )-- and verdict !

[Dave Homewood]

Unbelievably, there is to be no appeal by the Crown against this outragious court decision. Here's an article explaining what's going on.

Govt advised against Waihopai appeal
The Dominion Post Last updated 16:47 07/04/2010S

The Crown is considering launching a lawsuit to claim $1.1 million in damages from the three activists who stood trial for damaging the Waihopai spybase.

Teacher Adrian Leason, 45, Dominican friar Peter Murnane, 69, and farmer Sam Land, 26, were charged with burglary and wilful damage at the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) base at Waihopai, near Blenheim.

The prosecution said the trio cut their way through fences into the base on April 30, 2008, then slashed the plastic cover over a satellite dish with sickles.

The three men admitted attacking the base, but said they believed the satellite caused human suffering and their actions to shut it down, if only temporarily, were lawful.

A jury in Wellington District Court acquitted them of all charges last month.

In a media release this afternoon, Crown Law said Solicitor-General David Collins QC had concluded the Crown could not appeal the not guilty verdicts.

The Crown could only appeal verdicts when they raised matters of law - and in this case the judge's directions of the law were consistent with legislation and precedent.

However, Crown Law said launching a civil suit to claim payment for the $1.1 million worth of damage caused by the activists was still a possibility.

The Solicitor-General also said the case raised questions about whether the prosecution should have to prove that an accused acted without a 'claim of right', and he recommended Justice Minister Simon Power should consider whether the law needed to be changed.

Prime Minister John Key last month said he was surprised by the verdict and said he could not rule out a law change.

The Solicitor General said in statement that the Crown had "very limited ability to appeal not guilty verdicts".

"A Crown appeal can only occur where the case raises a question of law, such as where the trial Judge has misdirected the jury on the meaning of law," the statement said.

"The Crown cannot appeal findings of fact, or where the Crown believes the verdict is unreasonable or against the weight of evidence."

The Judge in the Waihopai case had carried out his job correctly and the jury had been fairly directed about the meaning of the defence the three men used, which was known as "claim of right".

However, Dr Collins said the case raised "serious questions about the appropriateness of the Crown being required to prove that an accused acted without 'claim of right' being used in similar circumstances in the future."

Dr Collins recommended that the issue be referred to the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, to find out if any changes to the law were needed.

Dr Collins said consideration would now be given to taking civil proceedings against the Waihopai three for a judgement on what he said was the $1.1m of damage caused in the April 2008 protest.

- with John Hartevelt