Picketers’ conviction upheld

Press, 4 March 1982, Page 4

Picketers’ conviction upheld

Two union picketers who stood in front of a private contractor’s rubbish truck to prevent its entry into the Waimairi County Council’s tip in Sawyers Arms Road, were correctly convicted under the Police Offences Act of 1927 on a charge of forcibly preventing Kevin Brady from working at his business of rubbish disposal, Mr Justice Roper has held in a reserved decision given in the, High Court. . . Richard Austin Lowe, a trade union secretary, and Glen Barnabas Ihaia, a refuse collector, had their appeals against conviction dismissed.

After a defended hearing in the District Court Lowe and Ihaia were fined $4O each by Judge Palmer. Their appeal was heard on February 11 in the High Court when Mr I. J. D. Hall appeared for Lowe and Ihaia, and Mr N. W. Williamson. for the Crown. In his decision his Honour said that following an industrial dispute between the Waimairi County Council and its employees engaged to collect, rubbish, the council employed a private firm, Mogal Bin Services, Ltd, to collect rubbish.

On August 17, 1981, Mr Brady, an employee of Mogal, drove one of its rubbish collection trucks to the council’s tip in Sawyers

Arms Road. The gates of the tip were open but his entry was barred by seven or eight persons, including Lowe and Ihaia.

The group was acting as a picket to prevent Mogal from carrying out the work normally done by council employees. Some were carrying placards, Mr Brady was told that he could not enter the .tip and about half an hour later the police arrived. There was a discussion with the picketers who then moved aside and Mr Brady was able to drive into the tip and dump his load.

Later in the day when Mr Brady returned to the tip with another load his way was blocked by only three picketers — Lowe and Ihaia and a third man who was convicted but did not appeal. There were other picketers standing in the vicinity of the tip entrance but they did not obstruct the gateway. Again the police arrived and Inspector P. J. Cavanagh told the three men standing in the tip entrance that he could either arrest them, br remove them forcibly to the side of the road.

Inspector Cavanagh had said that he had no desire to use the arrest procedure and have the police involved in what was basically an industrial dispute, his Honour said. The county engineer spoke

to the men and an offer was made of alternative employment but it was rejected. The three men were then arrested and Lowe indicated that that was the only alternative so far as he was concerned. The other two made no comment but did not move when told that they would be arrested if they did not. No force was used to prevent Mr Brady’s entry to the tip, nor was there any threat by the picketers that if he attempted to enter personal violence would be used to stop him. Mr Brady agreed in cross-examination “that it was all very low key,” and Inspector Cavanagh referred to the incident as “a peaceful picket.” Mr Hall agreed that proof of actual violence, or threats of violence, was unnecessary to prove “forcible prevention” and that a “show of force” would suffice. In the District Court Judge Palmer had held that there had been a “show of force,” He had said: "in unison the three accused formed ah effective human barrier to the vehicle’s further progress and obdurately refused to move. Inspector M. Griebel deposed that, six other picketers were present but not obstructing the entrance to the tip. “The defendants were

aware of the other picketers as obviously was Mr Brady. Patently if Mr Brady had sought, which I stress he did not, to wholly irresponsibly drive into and thus possibly through the accused, the assembled, then non-ob-structing, picketers who inherently comprised through their assembled presence a further ‘show of force’ potentially complementary to the defendants, would not, I conclude, have stood idly by.” It was submitted by Mr Hall , that Judge Palmer had erred in taking into account the presence of non-obstruct-ing picketers, who had not been charged, and whose intentions should Mr Brady have attempted to drive

through the human barrier were unknown.

His Honour said that he agreed with Mr Williamson’s submission that Judge Palmer was entitled to have regard for the fact that apart from those who were actually preventing Mr Brady’s entry, there were others present who were obviously associated with the scheme to keep Mr Brady out, and so it must have appeared to Mr Brady. The result of Lowe’s and Ihaia’s conduct was to constrain or restrict Mr Brady’s personal freedom of choice and he could only have overcome that restriction by violent means by driving forward into them.

“There were sufficient persons acting in such a manner as deterred Mr'Brady from enforcing his right of entry.

There was no suggestion that Lowe and Ihaia or anyone else tried to persuade Mr Brady not to enter and he had the good sense not to try, but the only inference to be drawn is that if he had attempted to defy the order the situation would have lost its ‘low key’ character,” his Honour said.

“It has not been demonstrated to me that Judge Palmer’s conclusion was wrong and the appeals against conviction are dismissed.”