We'll start with Woodham, as we read her column first. Kerre Woodham seems to have undergone a midlife metamorphisis, from bleeding-heart leftie to pragmatic conservative. But she's right on the mark today when she says:
Whether you sympathise with the men's beliefs, it's a very odd decision. Legal experts say it won't set a precedent because the decision was made by a jury, not a judge.
But you can bet your legal aid dollars that every lobby group in the land will be heartened and emboldened by this decision - anti-abortionists and the pig and chicken liberators, in particular.
And we concur entirely with her closing remarks:
But one thing is for certain. All the tosh coming from these men about their non-violent action achieving significant things and saving the lives of the women and children in Iraq is just that - tosh.
Ripping a plastic dome in the peaceful valley of Waihopai hasn't prevented one drop of blood from being spilled in Iraq.
But that's the problem with zealots. Logic and reason are superceded by fervour and righteousness.
That's not what we want to see in our courts.
Amen to that Sister Kerre! The last thing we need is for the nutters of this land (and goodness knows, we have our share!) to be emboldened by the decision of the District Court and to "try it on" in the hope of getting a similarly composed jury.
So on to Michael Laws. Whatever you think of the Mayor of W(h)anganui, he has a way with words, and that is evident this morning - he begins:
IT WAS the jury verdict that satisfied nobody. Not the defendants seeking martyrdom, nor the prosecution seeking a conviction.
Instead, 12 completely mad Wellingtonians staged their own protest and found three guilty "peace" activists not guilty. Lord knows why. A protest at the food, or the rate of pay? A sick St Patrick's Day joke?
Whatever the spite, it was a perverse finding. The facts were not in dispute. Three eccentrics premeditated their sabotage of a part of the western security alliance. They took boltcutters and a sickle. The hammer, it seems, they left at home.
One might describe Peter Murnane, Adrian Leason and Sam Land as misguided zealots, hippy idealists or, charitably, sincere nutters. Very possibly, all three. And you would be right. But also, you would not be wrong in describing them as terrorist familiars. Aiders, abetters and apologists for those nasty nutters dedicated to the overthrow of the West.
That this drama played out under a starry Blenheim sky makes it seem even more surreal. Because the reality is that New Zealand snuggles close to United States intelligence for a simple reason. If anything bad is coming our way, we'd like to know it.
And the Americans will be the first to know it. Basing a couple of spy satellite dishes in the middle of nowhere is not a high price to pay. Their imperative is to find terrorists and to frustrate their plan. It is the greater good.
Laws' piece is well worthy of a read in its entirety. But we love the subtlety of his argument in the last paragraph quoted above - "It is the greater good". Wasn't that the line that defence ran - that the defendants had an absolute conviction that they were acting in "the greater good"? That's a clever piece of word craftsmanship from Mayor Michael.
Laws' next few paragraphs confirm that line of thought:
Three radicals disagreed. They saw the dishes as encouraging the United States military to hunt down innocent civilians and drone bomb them. Hence the deliberate act of subterfuge and sabotage.
The weirdest part of the "greater good" defence that they used was that it did not matter if they were mistaken. It did not matter if their actions actively assisted al Quaeda and other terrorist organisations. According to their lawyers, they "believed" that they were doing right. By doing wrong. And assisting evil.
On no moral nor legal reference is such an excuse other than an extenuating circumstance. We judge the action and we apply the consequence. Motivation is a mitigation.
Except in Wellington. Where 12 complete morons can only have decided one of two things. First, that the radicals' cause was right. Or, second, that being delusional is always a defence. Which is why the 12 jurors need to be arraigned themselves.
We concur completely with both pieces. And all we can now hope for is that Judge Stephen Harrop left the door ajar, even in the slightest, in his summation to the jury. It is important, vitally important that Crown Law finds grounds to appeal this verdict. But that's just OUR opinion, of course!
7 comments:
Actually, I don't have much issue with the verdict as it is fact and situation specific. The jury has agreed with Mike Knowles in accepting that the protestor were delusional by accepting the defence. But it is appalling that Laws and Woodham abuse a jury that applied an option that a judge put before them as being legitimate for them to accept. The jury did not ask for the job, nor did it go outside the rules set by the judge.
I2, rather than applauding these attacks on a fundamental protector of freedom (the jury and those who serve on them) you should be condemning the malignant language and anti-democratic ideas voiced by these columnist. This is an open and vituperous attack on one of the few parts of government that the politicians, sometimes pandering to the mob and other times seeking to take away our freedoms, are unable to control.
Whether we disagree with the verdict or not, the jury gave of it's time to hear the case (and it was forced to do so by the law) and then gave a verdict that the judge said was open to give.
Who now, knowing that Laws, Woodham and all the others are waiting to attack you in shameful terms if you give the 'wrong' decision, would want to serve on a jury?
For shame, Laws and Woodham, for shame.
That's an interesting angle FE, and I appreciate you taking the time to express it so eloquently here.
I still struggle to accept this verdict as graciously as you have. I accept that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. But ought not the defence equally have to prove the theory it offers?
It's a legal minefield which goes far, far beyond my expertise. The perspective you bring is welcomed.
Lord Birkenhead, Laws and Woodham are doing nothing more than simply reflecting the outrage which the NZ public feel towards the decision of this jury (which I think actually comprised 11 rather than 12 members). These three nutters were not required to put up one jot of evidence to support their absolutely stupid claim.
The Chief District Court judge should take Stephen Harrop aside and have a word. He did more than put the options in front of the jury. He in fact as good as told them that they need not be concerned if they found these men not guilty.
The most important sentence in Laws' article is Motivation is Mitigation. In other words, it has not relevance to guilt. It only matters in assessing the quantum and extent of the sanction.
I think F E's point is an excellent one, and I hear Not PC has taken this angle as well. It's good food for thought.
At the end of the day though, I'm still allowed my opinion, and my opinion is that the decision was a bad one. These people took the law into their own hands, and in any other situation the act would be considered treasonous, or an act of terrorism, or at the very least, willful vandalism.
They have the opinion they were saving lives, I'm more inclined to think they were endangering them.
They could have been found guilty and perhaps have the jury recommend the court act with extreme mercy at sentencing.
Well put ZT - I guess therein lies the beauty of the blogosphere; we all have an opinion, we can express it freely, and others can disagree; no harm is done.
My policy here is NOT to censor comments, and the divergence of views expressed even in the space of an hour validates that. It would be a boring old place if everyone agreed with everyone else.
The decision may or may not be a bad one; I wasn't in court to hear the evidence so I am not in real position to comment. But there was evidence, showmethetaxcut, because (I think) all three of the accused entered the witness box and explained why they did it and the basis for their beliefs. Right or wrong, these weren't just made up beliefs for convenience sake.
By getting in the witness box and raising an evidential basis for the defence, it was up to the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously the jury thought the prosecution failed to do that. It is a long held rule of the justice system, going back centuries, that if the defence gives an evidential basis for a defence then the party bringing the charges must disprove them beyond reasonable doubt. The rule is important, and it should not be changed simply because the state failed to suceed in prosecuting unpopular defendants.
F E, the accused may have got in the witness box. But, and this is the important point, they did not advance any evidence to prove that inflicting damage on the spy base would save innocent lives or any lives for that matter.
They may have had and convinced the jury that they had a misguided belief this was the case. But that is not evidence that their beliefs had any basis in fact.
Post a Comment