Burglary has as a penalty a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
For any of the protesters a conviction may make visiting the US problematic
The following is from section 231 Crimes act which describes what burglary is in case there is a question about why the charge has been laid.
"Every one commits burglary and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who—
(a)enters any building or ship, or part of a building or ship, without authority and with intent to commit a crime in the building or ship; or
(b)having entered any building or ship, remains in it without authority and with intent to commit a crime in the building or ship"
Now the Police have added to the debate; Stuff reports:
Central District police communications manager Kim Perks said burglary was found to be the most appropriate charge for the activists.
She summarised the legal definition of burglary as "to enter property without authority and with the intent to commit a crime," and said that the difference between burglary and trespass was criminal intent.
Illegally boarding a ship is a crime under the Maritime Transport Act.
Port Taranaki security manager Arun Chaudhari said the protesters entered the port through a neighbouring property.
"The breach was a break-in via one of our neighbour's properties. We are entirely satisfied with our security measures and plan," he said.
The Taranaki Daily News understands that Greenpeace used bolt-cutters to hack open padlocked chains on the neighbouring property and gain access.
Chaudhari said that rumours that the activists rammed through a gate or piggybacked on a truck going through security were untrue, and said he had no knowledge of the activists wearing the uniform of port staff to get past security.
So; there you have it. The protesters broke into an area they had no legal right to be in, and then illegally occupied the Noble Discoverer, preventing its departure on schedule from New Plymouth. There is any number of potential "crimes" within that which to our bush lawyer mind would enable a charge of burglary to succeed.
6 comments:
The law of burglary was changed a few years back, and broadened substantially. That's one of the problems: lots of people were saying the police overcharged in the spy dome case by adding burglary. It was technically available, but when people don't think it sounds like a burglary, you can get a bit of a backlash (and some would say that's what the jury decision was in part).
A lawyer I know told me about a client of his charged with burglary for hitting something like a crowbar into a shop window, before realising that there were metal shutters behind it. The tip of the crowbar being inside the building counted as entry into the building so made it a burglary, she told his "that's not a burglary, I've done burglaries, and that's not a burglary" :-)
Whats the bet that Lucy Lawless's lawyer (say that 3 times fast :-) ) will argue that this conviction will have a negative impact on her career. A weak lilly livered pinko judge will agree and discharge without conviction.
I have one word for you - DIVERSION.
She will get off anyway - as long as she has no previous convictions and is prepared to plead guilty.
Which is a real shame.
Unless burglary is too serious an offence to qualify for diversion - which is entirely possible. Quinton Hogg might know more about that one.
Good point Jackie; QH might also be in a position to comment on whether the amount of planning and premeditation that went into this offence would be a barrier to diversion.
Not too sure about this. From the police fact sheet about diversion:
What are the offences for which diversion is generally not considered?
burglary (in most circumstances) or dishonesty offences where there has been a breach of trust
Diversion for Lucy, if that.
You hawks will be left shrieking at high pitch and fluffing up your feathers indignantly.
Lucy will be free to go and tell her story.
Good thing.
Go Lucy!
Post a Comment