Decision on journalist trespass charge reserved

Press, 8 November 1988, Page 23

Decision on journalist trespass charge reserved

Decision was reserved by Judge Unwin in the District Court yesterday in the prosecution of a “National Business Review” journalist who was barred from attending a company’s annual general meeting in Christchurch on June 30.

The journalist, Christopher Bruce Rennie, aged 38, was arrested after the police were called. He refused to leave, while continuing to claim he had a right to attend a public company’s annual meeting. Rennie denied charges of trespassing on the annual meeting of Advantage Corporation, Ltd, after being warned to leave by the chairman, Mr Robin Standage, and refusing to do so; and of assaulting the company’s chief executive, Bruce Edward O’Malley.

The case lasted most of the day. Judgment is expected to be delivered in about a month. Matters of case law, including New Zealand cases and a 51-year-old House of Lords appeal decision, were submitted by defence counsel. Mr H. B. Rennie, of Wellington, appeared for Rennie. Sergeant P. B. Mayo prosecuted. Mr O’Malley said the company’s annual general meeting was held in a first-floor room of Noahs Hotel, Christchurch, at 10 a.m. on June 30. He was at the door when Rennie arrived and spoke to two women at a desk, who asked him if he was a shareholder. Rennie said he was not, but was from the “National Business Review.”

He was told he was not permitted to enter unless he was a shareholder. Rennie then turned to the witness, who also told him he could not enter unless he was a shareholder. Rennie said it was a public meeting and he could not be prohibited from it.

Mr O’Malley repeated that he was not permitted to enter unless he was a shareholder.

Rennie then tried to get past the witness, who moved to his right, then to his left to block him. Rennie pushed him back against the door, which swung open, and he went inside.

Mr O’Malley said Rennie appeared to lose his cool after being told he could not enter unless he was a shareholder. Inside, he called out to the effect that the meeting was a public meeting.

In cross-examination, Mr O’Malley agreed that Rennie had been present, as a reporter, at the annual meeting the previous year, 1987. Asked if it was a procedure, for the 1988 annual meeting to keep persons or a particular person out of the meeting, he said it was not part of their procedures, but he chose to do so.

Mr O’Malley agreed that on the day of the meeting he “had the knowledge that Rennie was to be banned from

entering the meeting.” He did not know of any other person to be banned.

Mr O’Malley was asked about articles Rennie had written about the company, and whether some articles were unfavourable about him. He said “unbalanced” would be more appropriate.

He denied that at the date of the annual meeting he had a continuing personal pislike of Rennie.

He said Rennie also had written articles about other companies in which some of the directors were involved as directors or shareholders.

They thought the articles were not balanced generally.

He said the directors did not have an unfavourable view of Rennie, but did so of his style of journalism. Mr O’Malley said he had hired an investigator, and sought legal advice over an article which referred to him, his family and business. The witness said Rennie was told “regretfully” he would not be admitted unless he was a shareholder. Rennie asked if reporters of “The Press” and “Star” were present, and was told that was a matter he could not discuss.

Further questioned, Mr O’Malley said he did not give Rennie any impression he was going to give him a-thumping. His intention was to very quietly persuade him he could not go in. He was not aware of any other person being turned away from the meeting that day.

He said he was not at the door just to keep Rennie out.

Referring to the alleged assault, Mr O’Malley said he believed a briefcase Rennie was carrying struck him on his lower body as Rennie tried to knock him out of the way.

His body struck the door and his head jerked back, hitting the door jamb. Robin Charles Standage, a solicitor, and chairman of Advantage Corporation, said he heard - raised voices 10 minutes after the meeting began.

The door was then flung open and Rennie entered.

Rennie said in a loud voice he had a right to be present.

He asked Rennie to leave, but he declined.

He was told he was not welcome, but insisted on staying, so the meeting was adjourned and the police called. The meeting was reconvened after Rennie had left, accompanied by a police sergeant. Cross-examined, Mr Standage said the company had had some “doubts” about the objectivity and fairness in articles Rennie had written about the company and its personalities.

He said the directors had “come to a view” as to whether Rennie should attend this year’s annual meeting.

This view was not reached by a resolution. It was an informal consensus.

No steps had been taken to convey to Rennie the “lack of welcome he could anticipate.” Mr Standage agreed that a shareholder had asked that Rennie be invited to stay, providing he did not speak.

He told this shareholder the directors had a view about Rennie, and that after Rennie had gone he would explain the matter to the meeting. Mr Standage agreed he had written a letter to the manager of “National Business Review” on the day after the incident.

In this he had stated there had been no communication to Rennie about the company’s attitude towards his attendance; and that perhaps there should have been so that Rennie would have had insight into his standing with the company. Sergeant A. G. Tully gave evidence of being called to the meeting. While he was there, Mr Standage reconvened the meeting and asked Rennie to leave, but he refused to.

He was arrested after several warnings.

Rennie said in evidence that one of his responsibilities as a journalist for the “National Business Review” was to report the annual general meetings of all companies listed on the stock exchange, in the South Island. He had attended the company’s 1987 annual meeting, after asking Mr Standage for an annual report in advance, and being supplied one.

When he went to this year’s meeting he was asked by a woman who had the share register if he was a shareholder.

He said he was from the “National Business Review.”

He moved towards the door, but Mr O’Malley approached him and said he was not permitted into the meeting.

He asked if “The Press” and “Star” reporters were inside and was told it was none of his business. He was told he could not attend because he was not a shareholder and because he was from the “National Business Review.”

As he went to enter the meeting, Mr O’Malley stood in front of him.

They moved from side to side before he saw a gap and moved forward into the meeting.

He said he believed that Mr O’Malley was going to thump him. He did not recall any part of his body touching Mr O’Malley as he went through the door. He had told Mr O’Malley he believed he had a right to attend the meeting.

Inside the meeting room he was asked by the chairman why he was there, and said he believed he had a right to report the proceedings of the company’s annual meeting. He told the chairman it was a matter for the members (shareholders)

of the company to decide whether he should be there.

He noted that there were two other newspaper reporters present.

The meeting stopped.

The chairman had then told shareholders in a somewhat apologetic manner that some members of the press would be able to stay but that he (Rennie) would not.

At no stage did the chairman put to the meeting, the issue of whether he could remain, Rennie said.

He said he was told by the police sergeant, on the way to the police station, that he would be charged with trespass.

He did not learn of the complaint of assault until he was in the police car. Mr O’Malley had not put it to him at any stage.

Cross-examined, he said he had not previously been excluded from a meeting.

This was the first time he had had to force his way past a company official and claim his right to attend. Warren William Berryman, editor of the “National Business Review,” said his experience was that no difficulties had been experienced before in its journalists attending company annual meetings.

He had never heard of a listed public company closng its annual meeting to a specifically named reporter. Cross-examined, Mr Berryman was asked how much vim and vigour he would expect of his staff in pursuing their duties.

He said in relation to a fear that one might be injured that he would expect some risk to be taken, in achieving the public’s right to know.

He said it was difficult to say how much risk, but he did not expect a reporter to knuckle under.

Asked about a reporter’s risking his liberty to obtain a story, the witness said that would be a trade-off to uphold the principles of a free press. Mr Rennie, in submissions on law relating to the charges contended that Rennie was entitled to attend the meeting. He had attended the previous annual meeting by arrangement, and was entitled to believe his present acceptance by the company in the absence of advice to the contrary from Mr Standage.

Also, members of the press invariably were allowed to attend annual meetings of listed public companies unless and until members (shareholders) in meeting decide to exclude the press.

Mr Rennie submitted that to give “authority” to a capricious chairman’s attempt to put the particular person out of the meeting was quite wrong in terms of an alleged trespass.

Mr Rennie said in relation to the assault charge that Rennie was trying to avoid any contact with Mr O’Malley in his desire to enter the meeting. Neither charge could be upheld, he submitted.