Three activists who freely admitted breaking into a government spybase near Blenheim and slashing an inflatable plastic dome covering a satellite dish have walked free.
Their defence – that they mounted the attack to prevent others' suffering – has been successfully used by Iraq-war protesters overseas, but is thought to be a New Zealand first.
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.
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 readily admitted attacking the base, but said they were driven by a belief that the satellite caused human suffering and their actions to shut it down, if only temporarily, were lawful.
A jury in Wellington District Court took two hours to acquit them of all charges yesterday. A similar defence – known as the greater good defence – has been run by protesters in Britain, Ireland and Germany.
In 2006, a jury acquitted five peace campaigners who used an axe and hammers to cause US$2.5 million damage to a United States Navy plane that was refuelling at Shannon airport, Ireland, in 2003 on its way to Kuwait to deliver supplies for use in the impending war.
In the US last month, anti-abortion campaigner Scott Roeder was convicted by a judge of murdering an abortion doctor after failing with a similar defence. His lawyers had argued for a lesser conviction because Roeder believed that the killing was justified to save the lives of unborn children.
Auckland lawyer Peter Williams, QC, did not know of the greater good defence being used in New Zealand before.
"I would have thought it would have been looked at somewhat sceptically by the conservative New Zealand judiciary.
"I've always thought it was quite a good defence myself. It's very democratic."
Wellington lawyer John Miller said that, in acquitting the men, the jury would have to have decided whether they genuinely believed their actions would save lives and, if so, whether the force they used was reasonable. "If you believe someone's in grave danger of suffering and you prick a balloon [at the spybase], that seems quite reasonable, given your subjective belief."
Quite frankly, we are astounded by yesterday's verdict, and very, very worried about the precedent it sets. Does this now give anti-abortion protesters the green light to attack abortion clinics because "someone's in grave danger of suffering"? Does this now give right-wing extremists the green light to attack mosques because of their hate of Islam on the grounds that "someone's in grave danger of suffering"? Feel free to add your own scenario.
Whatever analogy you draw, the implications are chilling. The activist community will doubtless be rubbings its collective hands in glee, knowing now that it can run the "claim of right" defence, and claim the Waihopai case as a precedent.
We are no lawyers. We don't know whether the Crown has grounds for appeal in this case. We do however call on Attorney-General Chris Finlayson to get the Solicitor-General onto the job, and if there are grounds for appeal against the verdict, to exercise that right and contest it.
14 comments:
lex Masterley may know the answer to this:
If they admitted the trespass and damage why did it go to a jury trial?
Sorry Alex - did not mean to drop off the A.
They admitted everything pdm - they just claimed that it was their right.
I am not sure, as I don't appear in the criminal courts any more, but will hazard this guess.
The charges laid against the three were those where a defendant has the right to elect either sumamry trial or jury trial.
The three obviously elected trial by jury on the basis that the outcome was more up in the air than having the matter dealt with by a judge alone.
Sometimes the election of trial by jury is a strategic decision. Judges can be a little more cynical than a jury who may swayed by eloquence.
FES over at Kiwiblog may offer some more comments on the subject.
Ozy Mandias said...
what about attacking a 'boy racer' and their car because of the damage they may do.
What about a citizens arrest for someone buying beer from the supermarket in light of the 'damage' they may do to to their liver or society.
What about attacking the Aussie Cricket Teams hotel in light of the carnage they are going to cause our cricket team in the next few days!!
Also have a look at the Times of London site.
There is a report about the aquittal of an animal rights activist on a charge of manslaughter after the gyrocopter he was piloting hit and killed another.
another decision where a deliberate act causing harm has effectively been sanctioned by our peers.
This and the Waihopai decision have left me a little shell shocked today.
Did anyone else notice that the schoolteacher idiot proudly announced he is going to indoctrinate the kids in his class.
You're not alone in being shellshocked Alex. I would have thought that this was an open-and-shut case, and the "activists" (sheesh, I hate that term!) would have been swiftly convicted. Heck, they must have had the dream jury - twelve people without a single iota of common-sense!
I2. This case does NOT set a precedent. So don't worry. And the jury was 11.
This judgement makes me feel New Zealand isn't quite as safe as it was.
To a lay person this is saying it's legal to break the law if yo believe you're right.
You've nailed it with your last comment Ele - and what activist DOESN'T believe that he/she is right? Therein lies a potentially HUGE problem.
With the extraordinary growth in reach of government and the willingness of successive governments to pass and maintain laws to which the public is overwhlemingly opposed. The only protection we have is a jury of our peers. That's so important that the odd silly decision is a small price to pay.
I totally agree with how this whole case worked through and to the end. in my opinion: this is exactly like the wild wild west, which is good, this is a form 'we the people' can use to take control of the wrong doing going on (claim of right?). They have decided their actions were not worthy of jailtime or anything else, so then, this must mean that the 'spy base' is doing harm. This is a great thing these 3 men have done! I dont think we should bad mouth them because --- it appears they have gone outside the system --- but they have not!
as for the poor examples of Ozy Mandias, its not as simple as that. obviously. I think its a great thing how each case is very sensitive, also a great thing I thought of was the risk involved in the case. because there is no definite free/jail verdict.
This is what courts are for really, nice to see it for a change.
what do you think?
Post a Comment