SUPREME COURT Detectives’ appeals dismissed

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33887, 5 July 1975, Page 9

SUPREME COURT Detectives’ appeals dismissed

However reasonably it might be thought the appellants were acting, they were patently aware of their obligation to leave premises when asked to do so, said Mr Justice Somers in the Supreme Court yesterday, when dismissing appeals by two detectives against conviction and sentence on charges of wilful trespass on the premises of the Resistance Book Shop in Ferry Road.

I The appellants. Detectives Brian Rumbold and Louis Harman Bone, had been convicted and discharged on the charge by Mr E. S. J. Crutchley, S.M., in the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court, after a defended hearing. The charges were laid as a private prosecution by Martin John Braithwaite, aged 21, a printer. The Magistrate had ordered each detective to pay costs of $25 to Mr Braithwaite, and Court costs of $l5. Mr B. McClelland appeared for the appellants and Mr S. G. Erber for Mr Braithwaite. The appeals were heard on June 13. In his decision, his Honour said that Mr Braithwaite was a member of the Resistance Book Shop in Ferry Road. At the material time” he was in lawful occupation of the premises and in control of the shop. Also present at the shop were Brian Patrick Rooney, a baker and a volunteer helper at the shop, Ronald McKenzie Currie, an artist and Ann Margaret Bolstad, a student. Messrs Braithwaite and Rooney were known to the police, as demonstrators. Outside the shop was a sign: “Pigs are not permitted on these premises”, and under that was added: "Policemen are not permitted on these premises.” DETECTIVES IN SHOP About 1.45 p.m. on February 22, 1974, the two detectives entered the shop. Detective Rumbold had been there before. On the first occasion, he was without a warrant but was apparently received with courtsey. On the next two occasions, he was executing a search warrant. On the occasion in question, neither detective entered the shop as a customer. Their purpose was to inquire about demonstration plans in Wellington. Before the inquiry was made, Mr Rooney, acting he thought oh the instructions of Mr Braithwaite, asked the detectives to leave. Detective Rumbold wanted to know why. He was given two reasons — first, that the premises were private property, and second, that they were policemen. Detective Rumbold said they were on duty. Mr Rooney repeated his request more than once. Mr Braithwaite then asked them to leave. He told them that if they remained they would become trespassers. The detectives were asked again to go, and for their identification. They remained, and declined to identify themselves. They were again asked to leave. Detective Rumbold had said they intended to go, but made no movement. Mr Braithwaite gave a further direction to leave, and the detectives were warned that they would be forcibly evicted. They did not go. Detective Bone was then

forcibly removed, and the door was locked behind him. It was then unlocked to allow Detective Rumbold to leave, which he did. SHORT POINT The short point taken on both appeals against conviction was that wilful trespass had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, his Honour said. That submission was made upon a finding of fact said to have been made by the Magistrate that the detectives genuinely believed they were entitled to remain until they had ascertained why they had been asked to leave. The Magistrate found that the detectives were under no misapprehension as to what the law required of them; that they knew they were trespassers at a certain point which itself, he thought, constituted a finding of wilful trespass. In his view, said his Honour, the Magistrate reached the correct conclusion on the evidence before him. The Magistrate declined a request to exercise his discretion under section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act and discharge the detectives without conviction. His reasons were that it was desirable that members of the police be scrupulous iri their observation of the law and the rights of any citizen, and that the Court should not hesitate to make any clear departure from the requirements of law. "The question is one of the exercise of a discretion, and I cannot say that I find any ground upon which I could review the Magistrate’s determination,” his Honour said. “On the contrary, I am of the view that the Magistrate’s approach was eminently proper, and I can see no reason for interferring. “Accordingly, the appeals against sentence are also dismissed,” his Honour said. Each appellant was ordered to pay costs of $4O to Mr Braithwaite.