MAGISTRATE’S COURT Demonstrators Found Guilty Of Wilful Trespass

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32315, 5 June 1970, Page 16

MAGISTRATE’S COURT Demonstrators Found Guilty Of Wilful Trespass

The defendants had been given ample opportunity to leave and to relent on their original refusal to leave the Army office in Cashel Street on May 4, Mr H. J. Evans, S.M., said In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday when entering a conviction against seven persons who had pleaded not guilty to a charge of wilfully trespassing in the office. Six of the defendants and Christopher James McMahon, aged 18, a student (Mr W. H. McMenamin), who pleaded guilty to the charge, were convicted and ordered to come up for sentence within one year if called upon. They were ordered' to pay Court costs of $5 by noon today, in default three days imprisonment.

The defendants were McMahon; Christine Margaret Bailey, aged 18, a shop assistant; Christine Shirley Bird, aged 20, a machinist; Murray Donald Horton, aged 19, a student; Warren Grant Mawson, aged 18, a student; Brian Patrick Rooney, aged 20, a storeman; and Gregor Arthur Frederick Ross, aged 18, a student teacher. The seventh defendant, who was convicted after pleading not guilty, Keith Duffield, aged 50. a social security beneficiary, was remanded on bail to June 11 for sentence and for a reserved decision on a charge of refusing to have his fingerprints taken on May 4 to which he also pleaded not guilty. Terms Of Act The Magistrate said the maximum penalty provided under the Trespass Act was I three months imprisonment ;or a fine of $2OO. The act provided no let-out when the (Offender was activated by special motives. “In other words, when

people wilfully trespass an<jl refuse to leave the offence is committed and that is that. Motivation will not and cannot reduce guilt to innocence.” He said the Christchurch Army area office was public property only in so far as persons were allowed to enter and remain as long as they were not lawfully required to leave. On the evidence it would be unrealistic to conclude other than that the defendants were there to show ; by their presence their oppo- - sition to the war in Vietnam , and New Zealand’s participa- : tion in it. | “Each of the defendants knew he or she was required!; to leave, and they know- , ingly involved themselves in h trespass.” , He said the police acted , neither unreasonably nor pre- | maturely in involving themselves when they did. There was no ground for saying ; they acted improperly or : over-acted. 1 Rooney was the only one!, of the six defendants sen- j tenced who had anything to say on the question of penalty. f “Whatever the penalty im- ■, posed I would do the same t tomorrow because I believe that what I did was right,” . he said. "Genuine Protest” 11 The Magistrate said it wasp clear that the defendants’h motivation was one of gen-1

!uine and non-violent protest against the Vietnam war and its extension into Cambodia four days earlier. “If the defendants felt, concerning that particular happening, that ‘this is one step more into disaster,’ then they were in good company, for those were the editorial words that day of The Times,’ of London, and of the great newspapers of the free world,” he said. “If, of course, I were persuaded that these defendants were law-breakers proper or revolutionaries, I would not hesitate to penalise them hard ! for defiance of the law.” , He said the defendants really belonged to a far larger {company of people who, in {many countries and various) ways, had expressed opposition or deep misgivings on the Vietnam war. “The great majority of such people cannot be described as subversive, unthinking or unpatriotic.” The defendants must not suppose, however, that unlawful conduct was being excused on this occasion or would be excused in the future. There were lawful and more effective means of persuading others. If unlawful excesses were persisted in then a wave of general reaction might follow in which freedom could be the first casualty. That would be a disaster, he said. I The rule of law might be

tj restrictive but it was also 1 productive of liberty. 1 Police Act i In giving evidence on the charge against Duffield of j refusing to allow his finger- , prints and photograph to be . taken as required under the . Police Act, Inspector T.- V. ! Thomson said the defendant passively resisted attempts to j take his finger prints. “Because he is a small man and wears a brace on his leg J and because of a strong pos jsibility that one of his fingers ’would be broken, I had Constable Brailey desist,” said Inspector Thomson. “I said I found it too degrading to struggle with him further and I would have • him charged under the Police Act.” When attempts were made to take the defendant’s photograph he screwed up his face. “Throughout the whole proceedings he was quite passive and quite cheerful and offered no violent opposition.” Duffield told the Court he took the action he did to draw attention to the mixing of political prisoners, who had committed acts of conscience, with hardened criminals. “I was prepared to accept a conviction on the fingerprint issue to draw attention to the fact that seven young people were cast into the police cells with hardened criminals,” he said.