Tour convictions quashed

Press, 28 May 1982, Page 5

Tour convictions quashed

Two men. who chained themselves to the scaffolding on the Canterbury Rugby Union's building in Manchester Street to protest against the Springbok tour, have had their appeals against conviction upheld by Mr Justice Casey in the High Court. Mike Gillooly. a postman, and Robert Anthony Consedine. a social worker, were convicted in the District Court by Judge Pain on a charge that they were found without lawful excuse on the Canterbury Rugby Union office. No fine was imposed and they were convicted and discharged. Mr Justice Casey has quashed those convictions, holding that the scaffolding was not part of the building. Mr R. J. Murfitt appeared for Gillooly. and Mr M. J. Knowles for Consedine.

Mr Justice Casey said that on July 27. 1981. Gillooly and Consedine were found guiltyon a charge that they were found without lawful excuse, but in circumstances that did not disclose the commission or an intention to commit any other offence, on the Canterbury Rugby Union office in Manchester Street.

It was accepted by Mr Stanaway that the “finding" related to Gillooly and Consedine being on a scaffolding which had been'piit up by a contractor on the footpaths and was attached to the building owned by the Rugby Union. The prosecution also relied on the scaffolding being part of those premises in the case presented in the District Court.

The District Court Judge said that he was not disposed to enter a conviction if it

were found that the scaffolding did not form part of that building. The appeal turned on whether the scaffolding could be regarded as one of the items described in the Police Offences Act, which as Mr Knowles had pointed out, came within the list of offences under the heading of “Rogues and Vagabonds." Gillooly ana Consedine were engaged in an antiapartheid protest and had chained themselves to the scaffolding. The police had to use bolt cutters to remove them.

It was an offence if a person was found in the circumstances stated in the section "in or on any building or in any enclosed yard, garden area or in or on board any ship etc."

The question was whether the scaffolding of tubular steel and platforms erected on the footpath and attached to the building could be described as a "building” within the meaning of that section.

It had been submitted byMr Knowles that the natural and ordinary meaning of the word "building" and "scaffolding" should be used in deciding the question of fact.

The District Court Judge resolved the question in favour of the prosecution by studying the question of what the confines of a particular building were. He said it would be necessary to include such items as a verandah or sun-awning which could be removed, thereby leading to the inclusion of temporary additions provided "they form part of the building itself.” The Judge had found that

the scaffolding had been erected for work on the Rugby Union building and its sole function related to itt and noted that entry could be. gained from its office windows.

He also stated that. the scaffolding was tied to or attached to parts of the building and was clamped over the parapet, said Mr Justice Casey. Therefore the Judge had held that it was attached to and became an integral part of the building for the period during which it was erected and he found that the charge had been proved. Mr Knowles had agreed that the Judge was correct in including as part of the building a verandah or temporary awning, and Mr Justice Casey said that he could also suggest fire escapes and parapets.

"They are all integral parts of a building associated with its function as such, but this scaffolding was a structure in its own right erected for independent purposes related to the repair of the building. Any attachment to the building was for its use as scaffolding." Mr Justice Casey said. It would be straining the use of the word "building" to hold that this scaffolding formed part of the permanent edifice to which it was attached. It was a structure put up for specific purposes of its own and he was unable to accept that it formed part of the “premises of the Canterbury Rugby Union office building" to satisfy the requirement under the Act.

The appeals would be allowed, Mr Justice Casey said.