STUDENT DEMONSTRATIONS Court Gives Reasons Why Appeals Fail

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31307, 1 March 1967, Page 3

STUDENT DEMONSTRATIONS Court Gives Reasons Why Appeals Fail

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, February 28. lhe Court of Appeal today gave its reasons for unanimously dismissing an appeal by four Wellington students who were convicted of disorderly behaviour during the visit last year of the Vice-President of the United States, Mr Hubert Humphrey. The students chained themselves to stone pillars at the top of the steps at the entrance to Parliament Buildings.

The Court gave its decision on February 8, but deferred giving its reasons until today because of the important questions raised.

The four students, Paul Marinus Melser, Janice Mary McEllwee, Nicolas Vai Rosenberg, and Elener Kuna, went to the Court of Appeal after failing in an appeal before Mr Justice Tompkins in the Supreme Court The President of the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice North, said that in his opinion it was quite idle to contend that the conduct of the appellants in chaining themselves to the pillars of Parliament Buildings on the occasion of the visit of a distinguished guest was not likely to annoy some of the persons present. He said the appellants behaved in a disorderly manner within view of a public place. “I am satisfied that this is a case where the Court is fully entitled to take notice of the fact that the Parliament grounds, to common knowledge, is a place which is open to. and commonly used by, the public. At the time the police intervened there was a group of 200 or 300 persons in the Parliament grounds in full sight of the appellants.” Mr Justice Turner said: “It might not, in my opinion, have been disorderly conduct on the part of the appellants if they had made other more orderly public protests against the policy of the Administration of which they complained. “But to chain themselves to the pillars of Parliament Buildings on the day, at the time, and in the circumstances of this particular protest went further. “It is impossible not to say that it went some considerable distance towards provoking a breach of the peace, even though it did not do so, and it was certainly calcii-

lated to give serious annoyance to the public, whether a breach of the peace was rendered likely or not." Mr Justice McCarthy laid: “1 accept unhesitatingly the appellants’ right to protest but I remember, too, that the Speaker and members of the House Representatives had a right to freedom from interference at the doorway of their House and the right freely to entertain their visitors within that House unembarrassed by unseemly behaviour on the part of in..If 8 - „ Should the appellants then be entitled to exercise their freedom of protest in a way which seriously interfered with those freedoms of the members of the House? 1 think not The appellants were not denied an opportunity to protest. Avenues of protest were

available in a number of different directions, through the , ... . press, on the platform, in the market place. They could even Protest in the grounds of Parliament Buildings itself, “PROPERLY CONVICTED” “They sought to exercise their freedom in a way which interfered with the freedoms of others. This seems to me to be beyond question and to be the central feature of the case. It is not the fact that the appellants made a protest, but rather the way in which they made that protest, which is objected to,” Mr Justice McCarthy said. “I agree that the appellants’ conduct here was unnecessarily disorderly and objectionable. It was likely to engender considerable annoyance and, therefore, I believe that the appellants were properly convicted.”