Religious sect member traded illegally

Press, 28 April 1981, Page 9

Religious sect member traded illegally

A member of the Hare Krishna religious sect was convicted in . the District Court yesterday on a charge of trading without a licence in Cathedral Square on October 30, last year.

The officer, which was a breach of the Christchurch City by-laws, related to the defendant's selling religious literature to the public. The defendant, Barry Vardy, was fined $4O by Judge Bisphan. He denied the charge, and conducted his own defence. Mr D. M. Palmer appeared for the city council. The defendant, and the sect's national leader, Brian Maxwell Salter, both from the sect's headquarters in Latimer Square, gave evidence for the defence. However, in convicting the defendant the Judge said he rejected the defendant’s version of the incident. He was not criticising the defendant and his beliefs, or what the sect did, but the defendant and all other persons must comply with the by-laws and the laws of the land.

He said the defendant and Mr Salter had not been totally forthcoming in their evidence. He was satisfied that there was a handing over of money by a member of the public in exchange for a book from the defendant. Prosecution evidence in

the case was that a council inspector, Keith . Harold Helming, saw the defendant at 2 p.m. on October 30, near the Cathedral, approach people and produce books from a bag over his shoulder. Upon being spoken to, some persons put their hands into a pocket, or pulled out a wallet. He did not see money being paid, except in one instance when he moved closer and saw a man put his hand in his pocket, and then “cascaded" some coins into the defendant's hand. He was then handed a book.

Told that the inspector had seen money paid over, the defendant said he gave “most” of the books away. Norman Eaves, a supervising general inspector of the council, said that when he investigated this matter, the defendant told him the money the inspector had seen change hands was from a person known to the defendant, and was to repay a debt. Mr Eaves said the defendant said he was aware there had been a number of complaints from citizens regarding the sect, and that the council had made approaches to the sect to cease selling.

The defendant then said he would apply to the council for a licence. No application was made, however. Crossexamined. he said it was also

an offence, under the city’s by-laws to distribute literature without a licence.

The defendant said in evidence that he had given away some 180 magazines. A person then took a magazine and "threw” a few coins into his hand and quickly walked off. He did not have time to refuse the donation as he was accustomed to doing. He said he had customarily declined money when people made to pay him, and this was an isolated instance in which money was given and the man walked away. Cross-examined, he said lie did not know it was illegal also to distribute the magazines free of charge. That was why he did not take the inspector’s suggestion seriously. "UNREASONABLE" The Judge, dismissing a charge against a fish shop proprietor relating to his placing a “chattel,” a doublesided sign, upon the footpath outside a shop in Colombo Street, critcised the old city by-law under which the defendant was charged as being unreasonable. However. Mr D. M. Palmer, who prosecuted for the city council, advised the Court that the by-law in question, No. 1 (clause 363) had since been replaced. The defendant, Stanlev

James Briggs, represented by Dr W. G. G. A. Young, pleaded not guilty to the charge. A council inspector gave evidence of the sign being placed partly over the footpath. in a situation in whch pedestrians could trip. A cycle stand was also partially blocked. Mr Young called no evidence but made submissions. The Judge said a difficult}’ with the by-law was that it did not specify any restriction or limitation as to the size of objects, or the period of time they may be in place, or the extent they may intrude on or above a footpath. On a commonsense reading of the by-law any person placing any goods on a footpath, from a diamond ring to a packing case, could be caught. Persons leaving goods for a very short time could also infringe. The bylaw also did not specify the minimum height above a footpath, relating to overhanging objects. The Judge said the' by-law could have overcome these difficulties by providing for an offence if an object caused an obstruction. However, in its form under which the charge was laid the bylaw was so wide and so devoid of limitations as to be unreasonable.