The land struggle goes on — Raglan

Mana (Auckland), Volume 2, Issue 4, 18 May 1978, Page 3

The land struggle goes on — Raglan

At Hamilton on 4 May the Crown presented its case against the 17 defendants who appeared on a charge of so called wilfull trespass on Raglan Golf Course.

Their case rested on the assumption that the lease between the Raglan County and the Raglan Golf course was legal and binding. They presumed from that that the defendants were in breach of certain clauses in the lease which dealt with access. They presumed also that the police had the right, in terms of that lease, to remove people for alleged trespass because of a complaint made by the lessor* ' They then attempted to show firstly, the the urupa was not the area on ,which the whare had been erected and secondly that those people arrested were not on the urupa area (as the .police knew it) when the arrests were carried out. They claimed further that nobody really knew where the urupa was; that they had given every chance for the

‘6o’ protestors to leave, and that several warnings were issued by both the President of the Golf Course and the police.

Tom Poata’s case was taken as the test case for the defendants. On their behalf, he contended that the lease was invalid as it had not been registered under Section 41 of the Land Transfer Act. He claimed, therefore, that the Golf Club had no right to ask them to leave and that the police actions in carrying out the arrests amounted to negligence. He claimed police actions were negligent as they had not taken the advice offered to them to determine the legal position as regards occupancy of the land before they, arrested people for trespass.

He said he was present on the land at the invitation of the tangata whenua, to be present at a Church service, on an urupa. He had been present at other services on that land and had helped to peg out the urupa two

years previously. He had no doubt that the land belonged to Tainui Awhiro and he believed the golf club had no right to conduct the game of golf on that area. He was aware of the deep implications of that area. He had been led on to that land by elders from there who had chanted and called to those who were buried there. Because of what they said, and how they said it, he knew he was on an urupa. He had suggested to the police because of this knowledge of that area that they check their facts. He felt they were wrong to be there. He had laid an official complaint with the police against the Golf Club on behalf of Tainui Awhiro but Inspector Butterworth had said “That’s political. I refuse to listen to that.” He tried to make Inspector Butterworth aware of Tainui Awhiro’s complaint but Butterworth categorically refused to listen to it, or act on it. Tom Poata said if warnings

were given they were obviously inadequate as he hadn’t heard them. He said he had heard nothing. The Magistrate reserved his decision until 16 June. This is to allow the Crown time to prepare written submissions on two legal points made by Tom. The first of these is to do with the non-registration of the lease under Section 41 of the Land Transfer Act and the second is in relation to Section 12, Part II of the Reserves and Domains Act which says, in effect, that land shall be held for the purposes for which it’,s dedicated and no other. It is clear the Crown has no case! Justice dmenaded that the Magistrate acquit those charged on the day the case was heard. June 16 will show whether the just right of Tainui Awhiro to be with their tipuna will be upheld, or whether the tyranny of the - living and the dead which occurred on April 12 at Raglan 1 will be allowed to continue.