Electric fence charges dismissed

Press, 29 October 1981, Page 27

Electric fence charges dismissed

PA Auckland Two criminal charges brought against the Social Credit candidate for Mangere, John Frederick Pettit, have been dismissed in a test case heard in the District Court at Otahuhu.

The police lajd the charges after an incident on April 4 in which a constable who was scaling an electric fence round Mr Pettit's nursery allegedly suffered an electric shock.

Pettit, aged 51, a nurseryman, of Mangere, was charged with having reckless disregard for the safety of others by being responsible for placing a device that was likely to injure someone. He was also charged with recklessly.- . and knowingly permitting such a device to remain' on a property he occupied. . But after a depositions hearing Judge Duncan ruled there was no case to answer on either charge.

He said he would consider a written application ' for costs from Pettit.

The Crown prosecutor was Mr M. J. Ruffin. Mr L. L. Stevens appeared for Pettit.

Five witnesses were called — three for the prosecution and two for the defence.

Constable P. W. Marsh, of the Otahuhu police, told the Court he had been called to a burglar alarm sounding at Pettit’s nursery at 8.25 p.m. on April 4. He climbed to the top of a fence round the nursery but came down again when his fellow constable read a sign that said the fence was electrified.

They assumed that the fence must be turned off, since witness had not suffered a shock, and both started climbing the fence again. Constable Marsh said he touched a wire at the top of the fence and was thrown backwards about three metres off the fence.

“I suffered grazes to my palms and felt slightly nauseated a few minutes later,” he said.

Wayne Alexander Findlay, an electrical inspector, of Auckland, said he inspected the installation and power source at the nursery on May 7 and found it had 2900 volts.

Cross-examined, he said that in his opinion the installation complied with wiring regulations, and with New Zealand safety regulations.

Constable B. H. Netana, of the Otahuhu police, said he spoke to Pettit at his nursery on April 13. Pettit had told him he had installed the electric fence “because he was tired of his staff having to arrive at work to face human excreta and plants that were damaged to such an extent that they could not be saved.”

William Murray Gallagher, a company director, of Hamilton, told the Court of his involvement on committees dealing with electrical safety. He said he was also involved with several businesses in electronics and engineering, including Gallagher Electronics, which made the unit Pettit had used to electrify his fence. His company had tested the unit installed at Pettit’s Nursery, and found it complied in all respects with approved standards of electrical output. Summing up, the Judge said" he had seen no evidence by the Crown to prove that the electric fence could cause direct injury to a person. He wgs satisfied that this was a case where no reasonable jury could be expected to consider the evidence and make a conviction. Pettit’s counsel, Mr Stevens, explained outside the Court that the installation was similar to those used on farms for stock control and that the voltage of 2900 volts was only a pulse-rate of a minute fraction of a second and not a constant surge.