Rugby tour damage counts quashed on appeal

Press, 11 June 1982, Page 5

Rugby tour damage counts quashed on appeal

Two protesters against the Springbok rugby tour, who are charged with causing $1759 worth of damage to the National Party rooms in Christchurch, have had their appeals against conviction upheld on a technicality byMr Justice Casey in a reserved decision given in the High Court yesterday. Robert Anthony Consedine. social worker, and Mike Gillooly, a postman, had been convicted by Judge Pain in the District Court, fined $l5O. and ordered to pay costs of $29 and compensation of $6O. They appealed against conviction and the case was heard on May 26. Mr M. J. Knowles appeared for Consedine. and Mr R. J. Murfitt for Gillooly. In his decision Mr Justice Casey said that the appeals raised a short but interesting point turning on the difference between "damaging" and “defacing" the building. Consedine and Gillooly were charged under the Police Offences Act with wilfully damaging the premises of the Canterbury-Westland division of the New Zealand

National Party to the value of $1759 on July 8. 1981. In protest against the Springbok rugby tour Consedine painted the word, ■‘guilty." in a substance containing blood on wallpaper, and the cost of. replacing it was $1670. Gillooly poured a similar substance on furniture and fittings in an office on the first floor. Most of it was mopped up. but some ran down a desk and stained a carpet and it cost $49 to remove. It was submitted in the District Court and on appeal that what they did was punishable under section three and not section six of the Police Offences Act. which provided for a fine not exceeding $5O for any person who "places any placard or other document, writing or painting on or otherwise defaces any house, building, wall, fence or lamp post without the consent of the owner or occupier." They have been charged under section six which carried a penalty of up to three months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $5OO for persons who wilfully des-

troyed or damaged property. Section three appeared under the general heading. "Offences relating to good order, nuisances, obstruction in public places." under the general title of "obstruction and breaches of good order." and the subheading. "Wilful destruction of property." Mr Justice Casey said that he could not accept the District Court Judge’s finding that the word, "deface." in section three had to be restricted to a "non-physical injury" situation. Placing of a placard would obviously damage a building. But when it spoke of writing or painting, the section was clearly aimed at more than the mere placing of some painted or written object on a wall. It contemplated writing or painting on the structure itself. If the word, "guilty." had been put bn in the red paint rather than the blood mixture which was used, it was difficult to see any practical difference in its effect on the wallpaper. It would be equal!}' damaged and would require replacement in both

cases. But on any ordinary use of language the writing clearly marred the surface of or “defaced" that wall. The two subsections were not mutually exclusive. “I am satisfied that Mr Consedine painted or defaced this wall, damaging it in the process, and could have been prosecuted under section three. Accordingly, the proviso to section six effectively barred proceedings under that section." Mr Justice Casey said. “if was. of course, open to the District and High Courts to substitute the earlier section under which a conviction would have been inevitable. However, this is a matter of discretion and in view of the fact that the case was fully argued on the distinction between the two sections in both courts, and the prosecution elected to have it proceed on that basis without seeking an amendment. I do not regard this as an appropriate step for the Court to take on its own initiative." The convictions against both Consedine and Gillooly were quashed.