Tougher measures against violent protest predicted

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32975, 22 July 1972, Page 13

Tougher measures against violent protest predicted

(From Our Own Reporter)

WELLINGTON, July 21.

A prediction that section 86 of the Crimes Act would be used more often in cases of planned mass violence, and that the originators would not be allowed to escape, was made last evening by the retired president of the Court of Appeal (Sir Alfred North).

He was speaking at the annual conference of the New Zealand section of the International Com* mission of Jurists. Sir Alfred North said that! he believed, with the Prime Minister (Mr Marshall) andi the Attorney General (Sir] Roy Jack), that it would be unwise to add to present laws to curb the unfortunate tendency to violence. Section 86 of the Crimes Act has existed since 1893. It defines as an unlawful assembly “an assembly of three or more people who, intending to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner, or so conduct themselves when assembled, as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the people who have assembled will disturb the peace tumultuously, or will, by that assembly, needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.” The penalty for unlawful assembly is a term of imprisonment of up to one year. Sir Alfred North said it would be important that the police should extend a long arm to persons who promoted demonstrations which they intended to end in violence, but who were too shrewd to endanger their freedom by participation in the disturbance. He opened his address by emphasising that the rule of law must be maintained. This was a creation of tradition, and could not be brushed aside. Of today’s protesters, he said that many of them examtned things much more

deeply than young people perhaps used to do. They were no longer prepared to sit quietly by, but were prone to action which too often led to violence. He outlined a number of instances of violence, and of destruction of property, in New Zealand in the last few months. These included the “disgraceful episode” at the opening of Parliament in June. These matters, he said, had been sparked by three issues — the South African attitude, the feelings about the war in Vietnam, and the French nuclear tests.

“If we desire to preserve ■ our democratic way of life, i then minority views cannot i be allowed to erupt into vio- , lence,” he said. He was surprised to find that many young people did not have any real idea of the meaning of the rule of law. I They were impatient, and i wanted things to happen much more quickly. It was worth remembering that in a Parliamentary setting, a democracy always proceeded on a narrow cliff-edge to preserve the rule of law. “There is always a danger of people abusing their pri- :

vilege, and, after violence has occurred, of other people calling on the Government to exert its power.” The right to protest had been under considerable pressure in recent years. He was not against protest, but he believed that it should be carried out in a civilised way. Sir Alfred North expressed the opinion that in demonstrations in recent years the police had acted “with undue restraint”. While sympathising with them, he said that a case could be made out now for stronger measures.