Blood thrown at warship was ‘offensive’

Press, 26 May 1984, Page 4

Blood thrown at warship was ‘offensive’

Although many people might consider that nuclear weapons were obscenities, and people in New Zealand were free to express their opinions and views on matters they chose to, William Crawford Edmondsun had interferred with the rights of ordinary citizens, and the owners and persons aboard an American warship, when he threw sachets of blood at it. Judge Bradford made the comment in the District Court yesterday when he fined Edmondsun, aged 53, a public servant, $lOO on a charge of behaving in an offensive or disorderly manner in a public place, Lyttelton Harbour, on the morning of March 17. Edmondsun denied the charge, and conducted his own case. He did not give or call defence evidence, but submitted at the end of the prosecution’s case that there was no case to answer. The charge related to an incident in which, according to evidence, Edmondsun, while aboard the trailersailer Excalibur threw two sachets of what appeared to be blood or offal at the bow of the U.S.S Whipple, which

had just berthed in the port. One sachet struck the ship at the waterline and the other fell short. The yacht had moved within 5m to 10m of the Whipple — inside the 100 m zone which had been publicly notified as a prohibited area for unauthorised vessels while the ship was in the harbour. The Excalibur had been one of a number of protest boats in the inner harbour at the time. When asked by the police why he had thrown the sachets Edmondsun at first denied doing so, but then said he had thrown them as they were the blood of his children. Sergeant M. P. Caldwell, who arrested Edmondsun. said when cross-examined that the yacht had not impeded the Whipple's progress. However, people aboard were throwing an unknown substance and that the action had to be stopped. In a previous protest movement in 1981, a number of offensive substances, including acid, which could have been dangerous, had been thrown.

Edmondsun submitted that there was no case to answer. He said that he did not deny that he threw "two sachets of blood." Nor did he deny that it took place in a public place, "as part of an organised, peaceful protest.” He said that there was no criminal intent on his part, or to his knowledge on the part of others aboard the yacht. Edmondsun said that, under the act, an offender must have behaved in a disorderly manner which was like'ly in the circumstances to cause violence against persons or property, to start or continue. Sergeant C. P. Healey, who prosecuted, said the defendant was charged with behaving in an offensive or disorderly manner. He was not charged with disorderlybehaviour likely to cause violence; this was a different sub-section of the Summary Offences Act. Convicting the defendant, the Judge said that Edmondsun had misdirected himself on the question of law. His submission was

clearly related to a section of the act under which he had not been charged. The Judge said that, having regard to the law on this matter, and Edmondson's behaviour in throwing the sachets of blood, he found the charge of behaving in an offensive or disorderly manner proved. Edmondsun, in mitigation of penalty, then read a letter which had anticipated his being convicted of the charge. In it he said his motivation had been on an issue of life or death, not for him but for this planet. He said there was no neutrality in the matter of nuclear armament and when “that grey ship with weapons of destruction moved into view, a symbol of death,” he had reacted by throwing biood, a svmbol of life. The Judge said Edmondsun had chosen to interfere with the rights of citizens, and the owners of and persons on board the Whipple. The throwing of blood at the vessel would be regarded by some people as offensive, notwithstanding Edmondsun’s motives.