Appeal Fails In Behaviour Case

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31290, 9 February 1967, Page 3

Appeal Fails In Behaviour Case

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, February 8.

Convictions for disorderly behaviour entered against four persons who chained themselves to pillars at Parliament Buildings during the visit last year by the VicePresident of the United States (Mr Hubert Humphrey) were upheld by the Court of Appeal today.

The Court said it would give reasons for its decision later.

The four who were originally convicted in the Wellington Magistrate’s Court were Paul Marinus Melser, Janice Mary McEllwee, Nicholas Vai Roseberg, and Elener Kuna. They were each fined £5 and costs by Mr A. Wicks, S.M., who said their action went beyond the standards of good conduct generally accepted by right-thinking people. The four therefore behaved in a disorderly manner, the Magistrate said. They had been charged after chaining themselves to pillars at the top of the steps

at the entrance to Parliament Buildings. They told police they were making a passive demonstration.

They were not demonstrating vocally nor acting in any offensive way, but just standing quietly.

After conviction, the four appealed to the Supreme Court. Their appeal was turned down by Mr Justice Tompkins and it was against this decision that the four appealed today. The Court was told today by Mr G. P. Barton, counsel for the appellants, that “no penal restriction upon the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression should be tolerated.” He claimed also: It was not established that the conduct of the four caused annoyance or disturbance.

The test in determining whether the four were guilty of disturbance or annoyance applied by the Magistrate and the Judge was wrong. Even if the test applied was right, the appellants’ conduct did not amount to disorderly behaviour. There was insufficient proof that the appellants’ action was in view of a public place. The Appeal Court, comprising Mr Justice North, Mr Justice Turner and Mr Justice McCarthy, did not call any rebuttal arguments from the Crown.