Fair go lacking on ‘Fair Go’—Judge

Press, 21 October 1989, Page 6

Fair go lacking on ‘Fair Go’ —Judge

PA Auckland A judge has criticised a “Fair Go” television crew led by the frontman, Philip Alpers, saying it deliberately trapped a man being investigated and breached his right to privacy. Judge Kerr made the comments in the District Court in Auckland on Thursday. The subject of the “Fair Go” investigation, Mr Ashley Guy Rhodes, aged 32, of Takapuna, backed his Corvette into the crew’s vehicle to escape Alpers on October 30, 1987. Judge Kerr ruled that Mr Rhodes was not guilty of careless driving and failing to stop after an accident.

At an earlier hearing, Mr Alpers said he was with a film crew in a rental car waiting for Mr Rhodes in Victoria Street West.

As Mr Rhodes got into his red 1986 Corvette, the “Fair Go” team drove up behind him, parking on a bus stop.

Judge Kerr said Mr Alpers deliberately drove close to the back of the Corvette so Mr Rhodes could not pull out. Mr Alpers then attempted to interview Mr Rhodes and photographed him.

The court watched a video showing the Corvette back into the car, shunt it backwards, then pull out and drive away. The judge said that deciding Mr Rhodes was careless because he deliberately backed his car into another would be “overly simplistic.”

“Mr Rhodes had been placed in a situation where his rights as a citizen to proceed without restriction were being challenged by another citizen.

“Mr Rhodes’s right of privacy was being breached and, because of the way in which he had been trapped, I find he was entitled to escape from that trap by using such force as, in the circumstances he believed them to be, it was reasonable to use,” said Judge Kerr.

He added that Mr Rhodes had felt that he was being “harassed and intimidated by ‘Fair Go’ ” and it was obvious that he did not want to be filmed or interviewed. “What was Mr Rhodes to do? If he had left the car and moved from it, he undoubtedly would have been filmed by the cameraman, no doubt for the amusement of Mr Alpers’s audience.” Judge Kerr concluded that “a reasonably prudent motorist” would have acted and driven in the same manner.