Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Custody ordered after court fighting

PA Auckland An outbreak of fighting in an Auckland, courtroom yesterday prompted a District Court Judge to rule that defendants who misbehaved would be held in custody for the rest of the preliminary hearing. \ Judge Callander said in the District Court at Auckland that he knew of only one other occasion when that had been done in New Zealand.

He was speaking after two fights in a courtroom had disrupted the depositions hearing of charges against 24 Springbok tour protesters. The Judge said that those , who misbehaved would be sent to the cells and would remain there throughout the preliminary hearing. As each page of the deposition was typed it would be given to defendants in custody. ; ■ They would be able to write any questions for cross-examination which the Judge said he would put to the witness.

At the end of yesterday’s proceedings two of the defendants were each sentenced to 10 days imprisonment for contempt of court. Out of court, the Judge

said his ruling would apply to these two defendants. Earlier 13 people were arrested, a glass door was smashed, and a court orderly received a black eye when fighting broke out in the courtroom. The resumption of the hearing on charges arising from the third Springbok test at Eden Park was delayed for more than an hour. The people arrested were charged with offences which included assaulting police, resisting arrest, contempt of court, and wilful damage. Five of those arrested were tour protesters facing charges in the depositions hearing, which is now in its fourth week. The first disruption came about 10.10 am. when a court, orderly asked anyone who was,not a defendant to leave the court. This followed a ruling by the Judge on Tuesday. He had, closed the hearing to the public after saying he would no longer tolerate some of the behaviour of the defendants. The first woman asked tb leave the public gallery refused and was warned by the police she would be ar? rested for trespass. Amid cries of protest from

the defendants, the woman was arrested and taken from the Court. As the police led other people away from the gallery, several gathered in the entrance to the courtroom. When one defendant attempted to leave the room, a scuffle broke out between about six policemen and an equal number of defendants. One policeman lost all the buttons on his shirt. Other defendants were calling for the Judge to come into the courtroom from his chamber. Police reinforcements began arriving at. the Court when order was restored about 10.25 a.m. At one stage there were 29 policemen in the Court and corridor leading to it. At 11.4 a.m. six policemen formed a line in front of the defendants, in the courtroom and the Judge entered about five minutes later. One defendant lost his shirt in the scuffle and there was a further delay while another shirt was found for him.

The Judge said that what had happened was an “utter disgrace.” He then asked that one woman seated in the public ' gallery leave the

courtroom as she was not involved in the hearing. .As . several policemen struggled to evict the woman, another fight broke out. The Judge looked on as punches were thrown and policemen grappled with defendants, attempting to remove them from the room: When order was again restored, the Judge said that anyone misbehaving from then on would remain in custody for the hearing. At 11.30 a.m. there was an adjournment for one hour. When the Judge returned, he adjourned the hearing for a further two hours to enable the police to process those arrested during the morning. When proceedings resumed in the afternoon, the Judge ordered court staff, police, and the press to leave the room for just over an hour. He said that counsel had met him in chambers over an . application under the Summary Proceedings Act relating to the admission of some or all of the Crown evidence. This would enable those in the court to use the room as a forum for their discussions in private. The Judge continued bail for those already on bail until today.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19820304.2.4

Bibliographic details

Press, 4 March 1982, Page 1

Word Count
696

Custody ordered after court fighting Press, 4 March 1982, Page 1

Custody ordered after court fighting Press, 4 March 1982, Page 1