Injunction would stop tour

Press, 13 July 1985, Page 1

Injunction would stop tour

By

ROBERT LOWE

NZPA staff reporter Wellington The granting of an interim injunction preventing the departure of the All Blacks for South Africa would ensure the tour’s cancellation, the High Court at Wellington was told yesterday. Mr Douglas White, counsel for the defendants, the New Zealand Rugby Union and the union’s council, said tour plans would have to be dropped if the injunction was granted. This was because the defendants would not be able to make alternative arrangements until August 2 at the earliest, he

said. That date was arrived at on the assumption that there was no appeal against the outcome of the proceedings now before the Court. “The lead-in time for new arrangements would mean the tour could not take place,” he said. Hopes that the decision on the interim injunction would be delivered today faded yesterday. When the Court began sitting half an hour early, Mr Justice Casey said he wanted a special sitting of the Court tomorrow when he hoped he would be able to deliver judgment. However, when the Court adjourned half an hour later than usual, submissions

were still being presented and the his Honour said: “That hope is not so strong now.” Two Auckland lawyers, Patrick Thomas Finnigan and Phillip James Recordon, seek to have the tour decision declared invalid on the ground that it is against the union’s consitutional aim of promoting, developing and fostering rugby. Mr White, in his submissions, quoted from an affidavit in which the All Black coach, Mr Brian Lochore, said he had “genuine and serious doubts” that the tour would go ahead once it was delayed. A delay would also mean the All Blacks would have

to travel in small groups, which could cause problems with security. It would do too much damage to team morale, Mr Lochore was quoted as sayMr White said there had been suggestions the tour could be rescheduled to run from August 7 to September 28, with the matches before August 7 being played later in the tour. However, Mr Lochore had said that such a reorganisation was completely impractical. Among other things, it would create an additional fortnight of uncertainty and hamper All Black preparations.

“There is no way I would consider playing a test against South Africa at Cape Town after only three lead-in matches,” Mr Lochore’s affidavit said. Mr White said another affidavit, by the manager of the South African Rugby Board, Mr Alex Kellerman, had said that abandoning the first four or six matches had been considered. That would be against the board’s policy of giving tourists to South Africa time to acclimatise before a test, the affidavit said. However, Mr White’s comment that the tour would have to be cancelled was in contradiction to statements by a New Zealand Rugby Union councillor in an unnamed South African newspaper article. Mr Ted Thomas, Q.C. counsel for the lawyers seeking to prevent the tour going ahead, quoted the councillor, who was not identified, as saying an interim injunction would lead to the postponement of the tour but not its cancellation. Mr Thomas said the article would be included in an affidavit by a former All Black, Mr Christopher

Laidlow, who was in court yesterday but was not required to give evidence. The article was significant, Mr Thomas said. Affidavits produced on behalf of the Rugby Union had carried a strong suggestion that an interlocutory injunction would cause the tour to be cancelled. Later, Mr White said the delay in getting proceedings to court was entirely the responsibility of the plaintiffs. He said the possibility of an All Black tour had received widespread and continuous news media publicity from late 1984 until April 17 when the tour decision was announced. Yet neither of the plaintiffs had raised the matter with anyone during this period. “The Rugby Union has not endeavoured to hide what it is doing,” said Mr White. “It has proceeded publicly at every state.” Mr White said there had been a five-week delay between the announcement on April 17 and May 20, when the plaintiffs issued the present proceedings. Mr White also said the application for an interim injunction should have beenfiled on Monday when the hearing began and not on Wednesday. In addition, said Mr

White, the opening submission by the plantiffs’ counsel, Mr Thomas, had taken two days to complete. Yet Mr Thomas knew the hearing would go beyond the scheduled departure date of the All Blacks. The result had been an incomplete trial with only the plaintiffs’ counsel presenting evidence. Apart from the crossexamination of three witnesses, the defence had no opportunity to present its case. Mr White said the Rugby Union’s decision was valid because another of the constitutional aims of the union was to arrange international, trial, and other matches. On the issue of the effect of the decision on the wider community, Mr White said the union had to consider the views of the 27 provincial unions, which represented the grassroots of rugby. Mr White said the decision to tour had not led to a drop in support for rugby at junior level, as the plaintiffs had claimed. He said an affidavit by the deputy chairman of the New Zealand Secondary School Rugby Council, Mr John Graham, said there were just as many boys playing rugby in New Zealand this year as last.