Charges arising from slogan- printing denied

Press, 17 July 1979, Page 4

Charges arising from slogan- printing denied

Two young men who were] said to be members of the; Canterbury University Amiapartheid Club denied in the I Magistrate’s Court yesterday I charges of wilful damage' arising from their allegedly i painting anti-apartheid slogans on walls and on a roadway in the city during the! visit to Christchurch of >he| South African Consul-Gen-; eral, Mr P. R. Lindhorst, in April. They are John Leslie Bors-I boom.’ aged 19, a university student (Mr R. J. Mur- I fitt) and Stephen Robert Bay-| lis, aged 25, a dustman (Mr! D. N. Hampton). Each denied five charges I of wilful damage involving l the painting of anti-apartheid, slogans on walls, and a road , The charges related to the! Sydenham Bowling Club, the I Evangelical Church in Moor-1 house Avenue, Wrightson| NMA Ltd., Raceway Motors, Ltd, and the road-' way at the intersection of! Waltham Road and Byron I Street, on the overhead': bridge approach. Damage involved in the five charges was stated in the police charge sheets to be| $440. Neither counsel called evi-I dence for the defence, but; made submissions, after; which Mr F. G. Paterson,' S.M., reserved his decision until Thursday. The offences allegedly occurred on or about April 9. Prosecution evidence was

I given that a woman saw; ; three persons get out of a j I car at 12.30 a.m. on April 9; | and apparently clamber up I [the brick wall of Race- ! way Motors. Ltd. The driver, i i who looked similar to the i defendant Borsboom, re-1 ' mained in the car. Witness notified the police.; |Cross-examined, witness said’ [she later saw slogans painted' lon the wall. She had not! iseen them there the previous iday. j Police witnesses gave evi- j | dence of being directed toi |the Wrightson NMA buildI ing in Moorhouse Avenue | land finding Borsboom in al |car. He told a constable he! 'had driven off without his! | friends as they had told him ! to do this “if there was any I i trouble.’’ He admitted having; j painted slogans in the vic-1 I inity, and at two other loca-1 tjons that evening. An aero- > : sol spray paint tin was found ! iin the car. Eletective Sergeant K. A. I ; McFadyen said he searched ; I the car driven by Borsboom and found a wallet with a driving licence, and student I identification card in Bav- ! liss’s name. Borsboom told him thai he and “Steve” Bayliss were ; members of the university anti-apartheid club and had gone with two others, whom he would not name, to a service station, and bought a: can of spray paint. Bayliss and he bought the i

[paint and painted slogans at i several locations. Detective Sergeant Mc- | Fadyen said he called at Bayliss’s residence at 5.15 a.m. : Bayliss said “no comment” to most of his inquiries. There I were flecks of paint on his ‘fingernails. i Mr Hampton, in his submissions, said that apart [from some rather indirect or I vague evidence relating to Raceway Motors there was •no evidence before the court ; against Bayliss. There was no •evidence that the places concerned were undamaged before. j He also submitted that the [Offences with which Bayliss I was charged did not come within a wilful damage ■ charge. Wilful damage was I not a proper charge to cover [this situation. There was nothing in <he evidence. only suspicion against Bayliss, Mr Hampton isaid. Mr Murfitt said there was no evidence against Borsboom that he was involved ! in painting the slogan on the Sydenham Bowling Club’s premises. He also submitted that the alleged offences did | not constitute “criminal damage” with which Borsboom had been charged. In answer to the submissions Sergeant S. G. Jones contended that defacing of a property bv paint.. : ing slogans without the own[er's consent did constitute I I wilful damage.