CASE AGAINST A “SQUATTER” FAILS

Wanganui Chronicle, 31 January 1947, Page 6

CASE AGAINST A “SQUATTER” FAILS

PROSECUTED UNDER WRONG SECTION OF ACT OCCUPIED STATE HOUSE (P.A.) Wellington, Jan. 30. A charge against a “squatter,’* who took possession of a State house at Naenae, has been dismissed in a reserved judgment given by Mr. Thompson, SuM. The defendant was charged under a section of the Police Offences Act, which the magistrate held did not apply. The case was heard at Lower Hutt I last week. The defendant. Norman Stanley Harman, men’s outfitter, was charged with being unlawfully on premises, but not in circumstances disclosing the commission, or intern to commit, any other offence. Dismissing the charge, the magistrate upheld a contention by counsel ifor the defendant (Mr. J. A. Oakley) 'that his client was guilty of trespassing, and therefore the particular section of the Police Offences Act under which he was prosecuted could not be invoked. The magistrate said thew following facts were given in the case and were net disputed: The defendant, his wife and child of some 18 months were, during the later part of 1946. living n one room in Wellington. The floor the room was below ground level nd the room was sunless. Notice '•■as received from the Wellington City Council that the room must be vacated. A second child was born on November 5 and defendant’s wife was discharged from a maternity hospital on December 7. She refused to live in the room. The defendant, who had been negotiating with the State Advances Corporation for 18 months for a house, went to Naenae on December 8 and found an unoccupied house with the back door open. He returned to Wellington to obtain bedding and effects and moved into the house with hrs wife and children at 10 o’clock that night. On the following Monday he moved his furniture into the house and had remained there ever since. He was interviewed at the house by Sergeant Adams, of the Lower Hutt police, who told him he was in unlawful occupation of a residence which was still in the hands of the contractors, who had made complaints. The defendant made a written statement, the final paragraph of which read: “I was under the impression that the house had been handed over to the State Advances by the contractors, Musgrove and Hart. I know now that the property Is still in the possession of the contractors. I know now I am liable to prosecution for being unlawfully on the premises. I will put up with the consequences. I have no place to go. I am not going to remove my family. I have no intention of vacating the house until such time as the State Advances Corporation provides me with alternative accommodation.** On the afternoon of January 6 Sergeant Adams again interiewed the defendant at his place of business, and was informed by the defendant that he was still in the house. The sergeant told him action would be taken against him if he did not vacate immediately. The defendant replied that he would not go. That evening the sergeant called on the defendant at the house and inspected the premises with him. The * defendant’s wife, with a child in arms land another aged agout 20 months I who was in bed recuperating from ibronchitis and pneumonia, were there. The defendant stated he did not intend to leave, and would put up with the consequences, as he had no place Ito go. I Sergeant Adams stated that there was no question as to the defendant’s respectability. He could not be classed as a rogue and a vagabond. Mr. Oakley submitted for the defence that Section 54 of the Police offences Act was never framed with a view to such a prosecution. The section was coupled with Sections 52 and 53, under the heading of rogues and vagabonds, whereas the police eviIdence was to the effect that the deIfendant could not be considered a I rogue and a vagabond, but was entirely respectable. The evidence, he [contended, showed that another of- | fence had been committed by the defendant, trespass.

‘T have considered the submissions by Mr. Oakley,” said Mr. Thompson. “I have been unable to find anything helpful in the authorities, but it seems incontrovertible that the essence of Section 54 is that there is no offence under the section if the circumstance* show that some other offence has been committed, or that there is an intention to commit some other offence.” i

It seemed clear, he added, that an offence of wilful trespass had been committed, and the defendant intended to continue committing that offence. That being so, it also appeared clear that Section 54 could not be invoked, as it could only be used “where circumstances do not disclose the commission of, or an intention to, commit any other offence.” The magistrate dismissed the charge. No further charge has been laid by the police against Harman, and iniquities made to-day failed to ascertain whether there would be one.