Demonstrators Deny Charge

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32314, 4 June 1970, Page 12

Demonstrators Deny Charge

A member at the Progressive Youth Movementread extracts from the Bible arid a member of the Christchurch Citizens’ Vietnam Action Committee explained the meaning of the Viet' Cong flag to an inspector of; police while they waited with six other persons for a van to take them to the police station, Mr JL 4Evans, S.M., Was told in • evidence given in the Christchurch Court yesterday. Seven of the persons involved in the incident on May 4 in the foyer of an Army office in Cashel Street had previously pleaded not guilty tp a. charge of wilfully trespassing on the property. The decision was resefv&d until today after the hearing of evidence. The. defendants were. Christine Margaret Bailey, aged 18. a shop assistant; Christine Shirley Bird, aged 20. a machinist! Keith DufHeld, aged 50, a social security beneficiary: Murray Donald . Horton;: bged to. a stildent; Warren- Grant Mawson. aged 18, a student; Brian Fap rick Rooney, aged 20, a Storeman; ahd Gregdt Arthur Frederick Ress, aged tB, a student teacher. , Inspector.-X. V l . Thomson laid he read in “The Press’’ on the morning of May *. that the Progressive Youth Movem'irtt planned to hold a demonstration, at the combined .Services recruiting centre as a Symbolic gesture to dferupl the .-war , jin Vietnam. At. 8.50 a.m. he saw a group which ha< tofmpd with two dags, balloons and .paper outside, the Student Association building move off and h* ‘‘put two and twb together.” At the ’recruiting ceritre DufHeld pnfuried a National Liberation Front dag. and-an-other person unfurled a red Bag. Others attempted to put notices ,on the wall. After, they had been told to leave by two Army officers and warned by him he told them they were under attest for wilful trespass. “At this point they all sat down in a wbll-drllled iriovement."

‘ - Bible Read - While waiting for the police van to arrive Horlon read pieces from the Bible and

Duffield explained the meaning of Jhe Viet Cong flag. Cross-examined by Duffield the witness said he was not opposed to demonstrations and that this particular one Was peaceful. He had found from iprevious experience however, that there was generally trouble when he (Duffield) was associated with the group. The previous night a door panel at the centre was kicked tn and he was “just there to “I was careful not to go in at first in case they had gone in to enlist. Only when I saw the banners unfurled did I go

Officer Ashley James Ryan said in evidence that he was on duty in the Christchurch area Army office. 67 Cashel Street, on May 4. About 8 a.m. he saw a group bf .young persons, both male and female, in the office foyer. One of the youths, the defendant,Horton, was pinning a sign on to the wall.

The witness said he told Horton to take the notice down. Horton-continued pinning it up so he pulled it down himself.

Police Statement

‘.‘lnspector Thomson then talked into the foyer. He said if we didn’t want them there we could tell them to leave. “I said everybody was to leave the premises. I am quite certain everybody heard toe say. this. Nobody moved.” He said Inspector Thomson told them they would Le arrested if they did not leave. Some of: them did leave.

Captain Hargest told the remainder to leave blit they did not do so. They gat on the floor. ... “When the police waggon eventually arrived some got up and walked'to it. Some were carried out.”

Cross-examination As the defendant Duffield rose tb cross-examine the witness Senior Sergeant Mulcare said he felt he would have to object if Duffield strayed too far from the point, in issue. The Magistrate said the inquiry was into whether an offence of wilful trespass had be£n committed. ;, v t am only concerned with this. I am not concerned with the defendants’ motivation or Caffibodian or Vietnam protests/’ he said.

To a question from Duffield the witness said he made no attempt to find out from the persons in the foyer why they were there. The reason was obvious and he definitely did not approve of their being there. /■‘They certainly did not come in to joirf the Army. I asked them to leave in the interests of the Service.”

Powers Questioned Duffield; You- are not trying to use these Courts to suppress legitimate dissent?

The witness: No.

Do you not think you exceeded your powers of duty in asking people to leave before finding out what they wanted? —No.

The witness then produced paper posters bearing the words, ”28 N.Z. Dead Supporting SU.S.A. Imperialism,” "Join the Army, Rape Vietnam,” "N.Z. Troops Support U.S. Murders.” and ‘‘Withdraw N.Z. Troops Now.” He said they were among those carried by persons in the foyer.

To a question from the defendant Bailey he said he did not ask the persons to leave until the police invited him to do so.

The defendant Mawson said he had no questions to ask the witness because he considered himself innocent.

Corroborative evidence on events in the foyer was given by Captain James Frank Hargest. assistant commander of the Christchurch Army area. He said the persons present did not leave when he asked them to do so. Three of the seven defendants elected to give evidence. Not With P.Y.M. Keith Duffield said he went to the recruiting centre as a representative of the Christchurch Citizens’ Vietnam Action Committee. He was not a member of P.Y.M. and did not represent that organisation.

He said he had been instructed by his committee to go to the centre and discuss the Vietnam war as part of a week of world-wide dissent.

“I carried the National Liberation Front flag as a symbolic gesture expressing extreme opposition to the war in Vietnam."

He said he went into the waiting room expecting to be heard and he would then have left. He had no intention to wilfully trespass. "This came about because I was not given an Interview. I was hot given a direct order to leave the building. ... I was grossly incensed at the time that the police should be involved in a case which had no relationship to them.

"It appeared to me they were out to get someone.”

"Public Place”

Brian Rooney said he considered the foyer was as much a public place as a street or telephone booth. The Army or the police had no authority to tell him to leave.

Murray Horton said he was a member of the P.Y.M. and went to the Army centre to read a protest on the Vietnam war. The office was public property and he had the right to protest there. ' The other defendants adopted the same defence in statements from the floor of the Court.