Slogan-painting charges dismissed

Press, 20 July 1979, Page 18

Slogan-painting charges dismissed

Charges against two young men of wilful damage arising from their allegedly painting anti-apartheid slogans on walls and on a roadway in the city during the visit to Christchurch of the South African Consul-General (Mr P. R. Lindhorst) in April, were dismissed by Mr F. G. Paterson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. He ruled that the five charges against each defendant were laid under the wrong section of the Police Offences Act. Tire defendants were John Leslie Borsboon, aged 19, a university student (Mr R. J. Murfitt) and Stephen Robert Bayliss, aged 25, a dustman (Mr K. N. Hampton). Each defendant denied the charges, which related to slogans allegedly painted on the properties of the Sydenham Bowling Club, the Evangelical Church in Colombo Street, Wrightson NMA, Ltd’s store in Moorhouse Avenue, Raceway Motors, Ltd, in Lincoln Road, and the roadway on the Waltham Road overhead bridge approach. Evidence in the case was heard on Monday and the Magistrate reserved his decision until yesterday. Giving his decision, he said he was “forced to the conclusion” that the illegal application of paint was a form of damage, and he therefore rejected defence counsels’ submissions that such activities were not wilful damage. However, the alleged offences did not fit the provisions of section 6 under which they were laid. “Clearly there are other provisions of the Police Offences Act, or they may be more suitable for Crimes Act prosecutions,” the Magistrate said. “They cannot stand, in my [view, under section 6 of the

Police Offences Act, and are dismissed.” Section 6(l)(c) of this act provides for an offence of wilful damage to any property, where there is no punishment provided for damage in any other section of the act. However, there are penalties specifically provided in section 3 and 25 of the act for the painting or defacing of land or buildings. An application by Mr K. N. Hampton, who appeared for Bayliss, for costs against the police was accepted by the Magistrate. A sum of $3O was granted. Mr Hampton said the application was made not only on the grounds on which the charges were dismissed, but also because there was insufficient evidence to establish the charges.

Mr Murfitt did not seek costs.

Sergeant G. C. Jones represented the police.