We're delighted to learn that the Crown is going to sue the Waihopai Three - the Herald reports:
The Crown has filed court papers seeking damages from three men acquitted over damage they caused to equipment at the Waihopai spy base near Blenheim in 2008.
Teacher Adrian Leason, Dominican friar Peter Murnane, and farmer Sam Land were found not guilty in April on charges of burglary and wilful damage of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) base.
They had cut through alarmed electric fences without setting off any audible alarms or getting electrocuted before reaching one of two inflatable domes covering satellite dishes and slashing and deflating it.
The trio used the "claim of right" defence and said they were saving lives in Iraq by disrupting satellite transmissions and were acting for the greater good.
A jury in Wellington District Court found them not guilty.
A spokesman from Attorney-General Chris Finlayson's office said today court papers had been filed in the name of the Attorney-General for the GCSB to recover damages caused by the men's actions. No further comment would be made as the case was before the courts.
After the court case Solicitor-General David Collins ruled out appealing, but said the Crown may consider suing over the damage, estimated to be $1.1 million.
This is welcome news. Leason, Murnane and Land used a little-known loophole in the law to escape criminal responsibility for their vandalism at Waihopai. That does not however absolve them from being held responsible in the civil courts.
The damage that the Waihopai Three caused was significant; in excess of $1 million. The taxpayer of New Zealand should not have to bear the cost of their damage, which they admitted causing during their trial earlier in the year.
The chances of the full sum being recovered from Leason, Murnane and Land if judgment is entered against them are not high. But if nothing else, the action by the Attorney-General should send a message to the activist community that there are two consequences of illegal protest activity; criminal prosecution, and a civil claim for any damages caused.
Leason, Murnane and Land may have walked free from the criminal prosecution with not guilty verdicts. In our always-humble opinion they are still liable for the consequences of their actions in the civil jurisdiction, and we feel that it is an important, if somewhat symbolic step that Christopher Finlayson's office has taken in filing suit.
Not guilty does not mean the same as not responsible or accountable.
41 comments:
I thought this was going to be about the Kahui twins inquest. What do you make of that? Stranger and stranger, and justice never to be served?
@ Anon; I'll reserve comment on that case until the inquest has concluded, but I doubt that the truth will ever be known.
'Delighted' are you?
Christian on Christian - should be good!
"The trio...said they were saving lives in Iraq by disrupting satellite transmissions and were acting for the greater good. A jury in Wellington District Court found... that was the case."
Not happy with the verdict Invent?
Don't accept their story?
Don't accept that they truly believed they were saving lives?
Want to see them punished?
Milk
of
human
kindness
(want some?)
Delighted indeed Robert; they played their hand at the criminal trial and won, but their evidence at trial of having deliberately caused the damage will come back to haunt them.
As I've said in my post Robert, a verdict of not guilty does not mean that the protagonists are not responsible for the consequences of their actions. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
I didn't personally agree with the verdicts, but the verdict stands. The civil proceedings are another matter altogether.
"..the action by the Attorney-General should send a message to the activist community that there are two consequences of illegal protest activity; criminal prosecution, and a civil claim for any damages caused."
Yeah! The 'activist community'!
Can't have them thinking they can use the 'Greater Good' defence!I mean, they're invoking it all the time, getting off everything!!
You say, Invent, that it's unlikely that the 'three' will be able to pay any fine ordered by the courts but think that it's 'welcome news' that Finlayson is going after them for damages.
This is perhaps your most un-Christian and revealing post ever.
I don't believe that it's unchristian at all Robert. All the teachings I have received say that we are responsible for our actions, and that on earth we are subject to the rule of law. With one exception (tipping over the money-changers' tables in the temple), Christ's doctrine was one of complying with the law. The Waihopai Three admitted breaking in to the Waihopai Base, and to causing significant damage.
And yet you are 'delighted'.
I'm betting Jesus would tell you to let the representatives of the law deal with law breakers and that it's not your place to be 'delighted' or to prejudge or for that matter, judge at all!As for your comments regarding 'activists' - I'd class Jesus as one of those and ask you the question, was he fined for over-turning those tables, prpoerty of others I'm assuming.
As an activist Jesus damaged some tables in a temple. In today's money that was about $1,000,000 worth. He got crucified for being an activist. That's going too far these days, but it goes to show activists should be taught a lesson, huh INV2? Or is it one rule for fairy tales and one for reality?
Who are you and why do you have Slater's defence fund on your blog – a fund for revealing names of ALLEGED criminals – yet you suppress your own identity? Are you an ACTUAL hypocrite? The truth will out.
Omnipotent
I'm not aware that Slater opposes the ability to blog anonymously, so where it the hypocrisy?
Slater strikes me as a loud-mouthed egotist, but that doesn't stop me sharing his view that supression orders are granted more readily than is desirable for an open society. And they are not only granted to alleged criminals, but convicted ones too.
"I don't believe that it's unchristian at all Robert. All the teachings I have received say that we are responsible for our actions, and that on earth we are subject to the rule of law"
Yes indeed Invent, but are you responsible for the actions of others.
Why are you so gleeful about these three Christian men and their actions. How does it affect you?
Are your their judge?
You are assuming that role
("I didn't personally agree with the verdicts"
"their evidence at trial of having deliberately caused the damage will come back to haunt them.")
Not happy with the Law, Invent?
Like to see them get their 'just desserts'?
I thought that was God's business.
just deserts
I must agree with Mr Guyton that this is an extremely unchristian stance of you Invention.
3 christian men trying to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians...
I'm shocked.
The reasons for invading Iraq are now well known to be fraudulant and that the million+ people who died did so for Western dsires to control their oil.
The 3 men were quite rightful in their actions - and the judge agreed.
The government wants to sue? Fuck em. Firstly, it's a US installation, and secondly, it continues to eavedrop on the Pacific for military purposes. So fuck em.
Interesting point about ol' psychotic Slater's defence fund.... its presence indicates that you believe Slater is innocent - despite the Judge finding him guilty - and that breaking the law to reveal suppressed names is okay.
How can you - a class A hypocrite - even comment on matters of law?
Christians - full of shit since the world 'began'.
Santa.
Nice to know that you survived Barbie Santa. I've removed the link to the Slater defence fund; not because it offended you so, but because it expired on 30 September, and I've been remiss with my housekeeping.
I support a number of causes, both within the church and outside. Cam Slater's defence was one that I was happy to donate to as I believed that name suppression was being misued and that the laws needed review. I have blogged a number of times that I would not have campaigned against name suppression in the way that he did, but he put his reputation on the line, and I respected that.
Now the factual stuff; the Waihopai Three were acquitted by a jury, not a judge. Waihopai is maintained by the New Zealand GCSB, therefore the cost of the damage caused (and admitted) is bourne by the New Zealand taxpayer.
As for your closing comment; it probably says more about you than anything else you've written. Have a nice evening!
Boy if you keep going like this INV you will have more weirdos calling here than are on the General Debate at Kiwiblog.
BTW I support your stance 100% - good on the Government for taking a civi action against these terrorists.
http://www.imperatorfish.com/2010/10/wasting-our-money.html
There it is!
Terrorists!
pdm thinks the three Christians are terrorists!!
Use terror did they pdm, to achieve their aims?
Terror? pdm?
I despair at the depth of thought in some.
So pdm's not entitled to express an opinion Robert? You come in here with a mocking tone to anyone who doesn't share your world view. I hesitate to brand you as a stereotypical greenie, but I'm starting to wonder ...
BTW - your writing style is starting to remind me of someone with whom I locked horns on Kiwiblog some time ago - Greenfly, aka Village Idiot. Am I warm?
Invent - pdm is more than welcome to express his views wherever he wishes. I like it when he does.
There was no mocking in my tone at all, btw, it was disbelief.
I am/was both Greenfly, Village Idiot, Hugh Manatee, Gladfly and some other characters whose names I forget now (Tom Putt? Jack Humm?) back in the day Invent. I thought you knew that and certainly it's no secret, nor is it very interesting I imagine. If you don't like my approach to what I see as hypocrisy and foolishness, I have no problem with staying away. Just give me the nod - I'd hate to outstay my welcome or be banned :-)
Robert - I've never banned anyone yet, or do I ever expect to; after all, I am an advocate of free speech, and to suppress said free speech would be a tad hypocritical, wouldn't it? As long as we keep it seemly, I'm sweet!
Sheesh, it would be a boring blogosphere if we all agreed on everything!
So RG is the `late' Greenfly.
Says it all really.
RG - anyone who wilfully attacks Government property in the way those three nutters did is a terrorist. They may well of caused the deaths of soldiers fighting for our freedom from terrorism.
yes, back from the hell that is the barbie line...
now this bit:
"Cam Slater's defence was one that I was happy to donate to as I believed that name suppression was being misued and that the laws needed review"
So its alright to break laws that need reviewing? I think so too. I try to break a law a day (keeps the doctor away).
So, name supression laws... flawed, break em.... genocide... no no that's okay...
When did you lose your morality? How can you quible about damaged property? It's unbelievable.
PDM... terrorists... that's the funniest shit I've read here!!!!! Get a dictionary man!
"Christians - full of shit..."
Surely I've said something more offensive than that haven't I? I mean sure, I haven't condoned genocide like you, but surely...
xx
Santa // JamesStephenson // G-sus
(might as well clear up any alias scandals before they blow...)
pdm - without the mocking tone ...
terrorists utilise terror as a weapon to control.
The three Ploughshares used none at all, zero, not any. They punctured a rubber balloon with a sickle, then sat down to wait for the authorities to arrive, admitted to their actions, gave no resistance, were polite, are gentle.
You call them terrorists. You are using the wrong label for them.
It possibly suits you to use hyperbole when describing the men but I am not taken in by your exaggerated claim. Invent is. Other intolerant readers might be. I'm not.
My problem with these men is that they committed criminal damage for fun, then lied about it to the court by using the transparently BS excuse that they did it to save lives.
That's not christian behaviour.
They're not terrorists - that's stupid. They're vandals.
Robert; you're putting words in my mouth again my friend. Where did I say that I agreed with pdm. I merely suggested that he had a right to hold and express an opinion, just as you and I do. I personally don't regard the Waihopai Three as terrorists; rather as misguided blokes, possibly manipulated by someone higher up the food chain, and willing to break the law to get a headline for their cause.
PS - did you see that Pete Bethune has ratted on Sea Shepherd?
That's scrubone, Invent2 and me agreeing that they are not terrorists. I'm happy with that.
I did see Bethune on the TV news.
I wassn't reading your blog at the time he was captaining the Ady Gil in the southern ocean. I hope you didn't refer to him as a 'terrorist' Invent!
It'll be difficult for you now (just guessing here) to know whether to support him for his comments about Sea Shepherd, if you've attacked his judgement in the past :-)
It's all on!! Robert is attacking furiously, Invent is putting up a strong defence!
Who will win this clash of ideologies, and can it be won?
(flicks lights on and off) Fight! fight! fight! fight!!
Shunda!
I can't concentrate when you've got your disco ball on high speed!
I still think terrorist is a correct title for these people. Who knows what their next actions will be. Car bombs in Molesworth Street perhaps?
Invent2 'delighted' that the Crown is going to sue the 3 'misguided blokes'.
"I don't believe that it's unchristian at all Robert", to be delighted that these 3 misguided blokes are to be sued by the Crown.
This is welcome news. A jury in Wellington District Court found them not guilty but "I didn't personally agree with the verdicts".
So I'm delighted.
"I still think ..."
It was at this point that I realised pdm was in fact a Zombie...
I still think terrorist is a correct title for these people. Who knows what their next actions will be. Car bombs in Molesworth Street perhaps?
If they bomb Molesworth Street, you have my permission to call them terrorists.
However, while they clearly have a very loose grip on reality, jumping from petty vandalism to large scale murder doesn't seem likely.
Scrubone if it isn't terrorism it is certainly treson to wilfully damage government property. Especially property which plays a role in the world wide fight against terrorism.
I/S @ NoRightTurn expresses the issue so well...
"The vengeful crown
Earlier in the year, the government was humiliated when three men who had entered the Waihopai spy base and deflated one of its protective domes were acquitted by a jury. So now, in a clear attempt to bypass the BORA rule on double jeopardy, they're suing them for damages.
This is a pointless act of revenge. As the Waihopai Three pointed out when this threat was first made last year, none of them have any money. Hell, one of them is a Dominican Friar, and thus sworn to poverty. The sole purpose of this suit is to legally harass and victimise these men and salvage the government's wounded pride by gaining some sort of verdict against them. They couldn't stick them in jail, so they're going to drive them into bankruptcy instead. And they're going to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money in order to do so.
Unlike the Attorney-General, my penis does not shrivel at the thought that the state's power has been successfully defied. Neither does it see any value in trying to extract money where there is none. The government has already tried to punish these men. It failed. It should accept that and move on. This suit is simply an exercise in persecution. And that is not the act of a just government, but of a vengeful crown."
Did you leave a comment at No Right Turn Robert? Or course not; Idiot/Savant doesn't do debate!
But he does do clarity of thought.
The only left wing blog that does a fair debate is frogblog.
The rest are..well..I guess they have to be..bigots!!!
Post a Comment