Church’s ‘senior resident’

Press, 13 June 1979, Page 2

Church’s ‘senior resident’

i Westport reporter ; A defended case between the police and Craig Lloyd | Spencer, an artist, who was ] charged with being unlaw- , fully on the premises of the Seddonville Church, was disI missed in the Magistrate’s ICourt at Westport yesterday. ! Spencer was arrested at the church on April 17 by ’Constable, S. Gee after the Buller County Council had put a closing order on the building. Mr J. S. Bisphan, S.M., dismissed the charge, laid under section 54 of the Police Offences Act, because he felt it was not an appropriate section to deal with the case.

Breaches of a closing order would be considered under’ "the Health Act, he said.

ponstable Gee told the Court that he had received information from the council

'that a closing order had been put on the Seddonville Church and he therefore kept observation on the building.

Mr B. L. Lovell, for Spencer, questioned Constable Gee, who said that he had lived in the district for three years and had known Spencer during that time. He knew that Spencer had lived in the church previously, and agreed that many persons had lived in the church for varying periods. He had not inquired front Spencer if he had the authority of the owner to stay on the premises. He admitted that there was no evidence of permanent occupation when he found Spencer in the church. Mr Lovell then called] Spencer, who has lived in various places in the Buller district over the last four years.

Spencer said he had stayed in the Seddonville Church "just about consistently for the last 18 months.”

He said he knew the owners, one of whom had died, and had the consent of the surviving owner to stay in the building. He said that! many persons stayed in the church for varying periods but he was perhaps the “senior resident.”

] Spencer said he was not at the church when the closing order was served and had received no word from the owner stopping him visiting. He knew of the closing order, as there were copies “all over the place.” The Magistrate said he accepted that Spencer more than likely had' the owner’s authority to occupy the building and fejt that the present charge was inappropriate in the circumstances.