Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

The Government will change the “claim of right” defence so it cannot be used as it was by three activists who escaped conviction despite wilfully damaging a communications base at Waihopai. …

The New Zealand Law Society agreed the law needed to be changed.

“Everybody, including most lawyers, were surprised it was a successful defence in that case,” said Jonathan Krebs, the society’s convener of the criminal law subcommittee.

“It’s quite astounding that the defence could be successful when these vandals decided they were going to go and destroy this thing. That needs to be corrected.”

If the law was not changed, it would be a licence to vandalise.

But he said it should not be repealed because it was a legitimate defence in some cases, such as when buying stolen goods that the buyer thought was a legitimate sale.

I agree. The Government has put up five options. They are:

1. Shifting the burden of proof
2. Adding a reasonableness element
3. Amending the offences that have ‘claim of right’ as an element
4. Adding a property interest criterion
5. Repealing the defence

A briefing paper is here.

A further paper in September will outline preferred options. Nos 1, 2 an 4 all looks pretty reasonable to me.

The Herald chomps into the apple debate:

Apple-growers from China, the United States and Chile are queuing to sell their fruit in Australia.

They, especially, will be interested in New Zealand’s reported success in persuading the World Trade Organisation to overturn Australia’s long-running ban on the importing of apples from this country.

But they, too, are the reason Australia is bound to use every conceivable delaying tactic to deny the benefits of that verdict to New Zealand orchardists.

Protection of struggling Australian producers has become the only rationale for the ban in the latter years of its 90 years’ existence.

Hypocrisy for a nation which has championed free trade in agriculture.

In the process, however, Australia is besmirching its reputation as a promoter of free trade. At the moment, its trade practices are the subject of 10 complaints from other countries.

New Zealand has no such cases against it.

Yay.

The Press also takes up the cudgels on apples:

The reported World Trade Organisation decision which would allow New Zealand to export apples across the Tasman is not just a victory for our pipfruit industry. It is also a big win for New Zealand trade officials and for the cause of free trade itself. For Australia to have used spurious science to block for so long New Zealand apples was nonsensical and a complete contradiction of its otherwise strong free-trade credentials.

If Australia do not accept the ruling, once final, then NZ can apply for and get trade sanctions against Australia. That would be very damaging to the relationship, but may be necessary if Australia refuses to comply with the rules it signed up to.

The Dominion Post focuses on the Waihopai Three:

Father Murnane believes it unlikely that the Government will pursue a lawsuit against them because, he says, they don’t have much money and civil action would cost taxpayers too much.

He is right that yet more court proceedings would not be cheap. But sometimes protesters need to accept that principles can come at a cost.

Messrs Murnane, Leason and Land would surely be prepared to pay that price? If principles are worth standing up for – and they almost always are – those who hold them dear must be willing to go down to the wire to uphold them. If that means having an attachment order assigned to their income, or a lien placed against their property, to meet the cost of paying for damage to public property, so be it. And if the jury verdict was as popular as the triumvirate believes, their supporters will obviously be willing to help fund any damages awarded against them.

The solicitor-general should proceed. Taxpayers should not have to stump up the cash to fund this pointless protest.

The news their claimed poverty didn’t include half a million dollars of land, does make a civil case more appealing.

The ODT looks at competitive education

Comparisons can help human beings, a competitive species, strive to do better – whether in NCEA pass rates or scholarship numbers or in provincial education correlations.

They give schools and communities the chance for pride, often well earned, or for motivation to do better next time.

Sometimes, too, they provide opportunities for finding reasons, often valid, why performances are down the scale. Even if bald results taken at face value can be misleading, they are a part of the information mix.

Except for those who want to ban them.

The Herald reports:

The New Zealand Law Society is welcoming a Government review of the defence used in the Waihopai spy base case, where three activists were acquitted of damaging property because their actions were based on a belief that what they did was lawful.

Yesterday Justice Minister Simon Power announced the review of the “claim of right” defence, including looking at whether there needed to be a “reasonableness element” to it. …

The Law Society’s convener of the criminal law subcommittee, Jonathan Krebs, said a review was timely.

“The defence of a ‘claim of right’ certainly has a place, and it’s an important and fundamental defence to have.

“But if the defence allows someone to be acquitted where there was criminal intent, however well-principled they thought it to be, then there is something wrong with the criminal law and it may need to be adjusted slightly.

If the Government does not change the law, I suspect we will have a rash of property vandalism against various government buildings and embassies, with vandals using the same defence.

The Herald has advice re Waihopai:

There seems no real point in the Crown’s mounting a $1.1 million damages claim against the Waihopai spy base attackers. It may be an open-and-shut case in which all that has to be proved is that damage was caused and that the three members of the Ploughshares peace movement were responsible for it. But it would be a pyrrhic victory. According to one of the trio, teacher Adrian Leason, the men have less than $1000 between them. The Crown would receive little, or nothing, after spending a considerable sum bringing a civil case. At the same time, it would provide the trio with a platform to further expound on the satellite station and their view of its role in the Echelon electronic eavesdropping network.

I agree.

“Claim of right” is enshrined in the 1961 Crimes Act for cases such as those involving people who have unwittingly bought stolen goods. It defies belief that the framers of that legislation envisaged it being used by men who freely admitted cutting through the fence surrounding a spy station, breaking into the base and slashing an inflatable plastic dome covering a satellite dish. The trial judge had his doubts, reserving a question of law relating to “claim of right”.

The Crown’s right of appeal is severely circumscribed. But the Solicitor-General has concluded, quite rightly, that the case raises major questions about the appropriateness of the Crown’s being required to prove that an accused acted without “claim of right” being used again in similar circumstances. He has, therefore, referred the matter to the Justice Minister. After a review, the Cabinet will decide if the Crimes Act should be amended to stop the defence being used in situations like this.

And I hope and expect Cabinet will do so. Otherwise it will be open season on government buildings.

The Dominion Post finally has its say on Easter trading:

In Wellington, regional chamber of commerce chief Charles Finny believes the law is nonsensical. “We see no reason why the state should be prohibiting people from opening. It should be up to the retailer or restaurant,” he says, arguing that the capital’s growing status as a tourist destination demands change.

Has the time come for a courageous government – that probably counts this one out – to sponsor legislation that permits shops to open throughout Easter, doing away with the quaint notion that the issue is for individual MPs’ consciences, and shop owners to decide for themselves whether or not they want to open?

The Dominion Post believes so.

I want to see the shop trading restrictions repealed. They are nonsensical, archaic and inconsistent.

However I don’t think one of the very few issues upon which MPs have a free vote, should become a party issue.

The Herald reports:

One of the three Waihopai spy base attackers has welcomed the prospect of a $1.1 million Crown damages claim, saying the trio have less than $1000 between them.

Otaki school teacher Adrian Leason said even if the Crown won a lawsuit, it would have trouble getting the money.

“If they are going after Father Peter, Sam and myself, our combined personal wealth is probably under $1000.

Which is why a civil suit is the last thing the Crown should do. Sure, they may win the case and find the three liable for damages, but they’ll never get any money out of them.

Worse, another court case is exactly what they want. Their motives in their actions was to gain publicity for their cause, and they’d love another week or so of taxpayer funded publicity.

To some degree, their actions are much the same as Bethune’s in Japan – they want trials and all the publicity that go with them.

Three editorials on Waihopai. First the Herald:

Infamously, former Telecom chief executive Theresa Gattung once admitted her company used confusion as a marketing tool. For quite some time, it worked.

A similar strategy employed by three men who broke into the Waihopai spy base near Blenheim in 2008 and slashed an inflatable plastic dome covering a satellite dish has enjoyed equal success. Various wishy-washy defences have proved sufficient to befuddle a jury in the Wellington District Court, leading to the trio’s acquittal. …

The acquittal will not set a legal precedent. That is the domain of judges, not juries. But it will probably encourage others who have attacked public property to mount the same defence.

The widespread disbelief that has greeted this decision means any such attempt will surely fall on stony ground. Clearly, that should have been the case this time, as well.

And the Press:

The question now is whether the decision will set a precedent. Legally, a decision by a district court jury does not create a precedent.

But it is likely that others charged with offences related to a cause which they passionately believe in will attempt to use the Waihopai defence.

An example might be an anti-abortionist charged with damaging a hospital where abortions were performed.

Which is what you get when people think their beliefs put them above the law.

And the ODT:

It is plain fact that state borders do not deter terrorists and criminals in the digital age yet citizens continue to rely on the State to protect both themselves and the nation’s borders. The Waihopai station must be considered to be part of that obligation but it seems hardly ever to be considered that its activities may well be saving lives, including within this country’s borders.

However much some sincere objectors may dislike it and what it represents, can they offer a practical and reliable alternative to hold secure the safety of the nation and its citizens?

That’s disapproval all round.

The Dom Post breaks the pattern and talks about former Auckland Museum director Vanda Vitali:

The not unexpected resignation of Auckland War Memorial Museum director Vanda Vitali on Tuesday raises some interesting questions. Though the parting of the ways between board and chief executive was inevitable after Dr Vitali antagonised the family of Sir Edmund Hillary, the manner of her going led one Auckland mayor to suggest the board, rather than its employee, should go.

Implicit in Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey’s criticism was that, having searched worldwide for a museum professional to bring Auckland’s historical treasury into the 21st century, the board could not manage a woman who, once appointed, stood her ground. …

Had 120 comments yesterday on the Waihopai verdict. Best comment was from Dime:

TVNZ reports:

Three men accused of breaking in to the Waihopai spy case near Blenheim and damaging a protective dome have been found not guily.

The jury returned the verdict on Wednesday night. They were found not guilty on all three charges.

Adrian Leason, a teacher, Dominican friar Peter Murnane and farmer Sam Land pleaded not guilty in Wellington District Court to one count of burglary and two of wilful damage at the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) facility. …

In his closing arguments, Leason’s lawyer Michael Knowles said the men were driven by a belief that the satellite caused human suffering and their actions to shut it down, if only temporarily, were lawful.

“That belief doesn’t have to be correct,” he said.

“They had a belief in a higher law, a law for protecting people.”

I’m not totally surprised at this, even though I disagree. Bryan Law’s updates on Scoop and other blogs, had indicated that the jury seemed quite sympathetic to the defendents.

I think the verdict reflects that many NZers do not like spy stations, regardless of the actual applicable law.

What will be interesting is if this sets out a spate of attacks on properties by protesters, who will hope for a similar outcome.

As for Waihopai, they may need to invest in some extra guards with tasers!

Also a revealing of National’s secret agenda:

• Students of Decile One Primary Schools to be converted to bio-ethanol
• Judith Collins to be appointed Associate Minister of Social Welfare with special areas of responsibility including draining beneficiaries of their cerebrospinal fluids.
• Said they wouldn’t sell any state assets, didn’t promise not to just give them away.

I like the idea of getting around the no sale clause by giving every NZ adult free shares in some SOEs

Lyndon Hood at Scoop also has what I presume is satire:

If New Zealand wants to maintain its edge as a clean, green nation, we urgently need to pretend as hard as we can to take decisive action on climate change.

Heh.

I hadn’t yet blogged about the dickheads who caused up to $1 million damage to Waihopai, as they are just desperate for publicity. The court should just fine them the cost of the damage. I don’t see why us taxpayers should pay for their activities.

Now I see they are on a fast while behind bars. Good God they think they are some sort of noble victims. They’re simply petty criminals and should be treated like you would a vandal.