Decision Reserved When Demonstrators Charged

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31001, 5 March 1966, Page 20

Decision Reserved When Demonstrators Charged

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, March 4.

Mr J. A. Wicks, S.M., reserved his decision on charges of disorderly behaviour against four persons who chained themselves to the pillars of Parliament House on February 20 for the visit of the Vice-President of the United States (Mr Hubert Humphrey).

Counsel (Mr N. R. Taylor) said that the defence was that their conduct did not come within the ambit of section concerned.

Bef ore the Court were Paul Marinus Mellser, aged 19, Janice Mary McElwee, aged 23, Nicholas Vai Rosenberg, aged 20, all students, and Elener Kuna, aged 28, a clerk. The Magistrate said he thought it necessary that some proper and carefully warded decision be given. NOT PART OF GROUP Sergeant R. P. J. Ne'iilly said McElwee had said they represented no particular group. They were individually protesting against the visit of Mr Humphrey and were there of their own free will. They were warned to leave but said they did not have the keys to the padlocks on the chains and even if they dad have them they would not be leaving until after the Vice-President left. McElwee said the police would have to cut them off. Had they desired, said Sergeant Neilly, the demonstrators could almost have blocked the entrance. The pillars were scored by the chains, he said. Cross-examined by Mr Taylor, who said that he wished to establish at the start that he “in no way wished to reflect on the conduct of the police,” the witness said there was no suggestion that the defendants intended to block the way. Seargeant Hoard said that about 4.30 p.m. he warned all the 50 demonstrators on the steps to move back beyond the roadway. The four chained to the pillars were warned individually to move. Sergeant Hoard said he was told by one of the demonstrators on the steps that the four would stay.

Sergeant Hoard said he warned the four they would be arrested for disorderly behaviour if they did .inert, leave. They were given the opportunity to leave, and were then arrested. The chains were cut with bolt cutters and the man Kuna walked to the waiting police van. The others sat down and had to be carried. The spokesman for the group, who was among the demonstrators, told him the four had sought legal advice before chaining themselves to the pillars and had established a fund to pay any fines imposed as a result of their action. Cross-examined by Mr Taylor, witness said the crowd was cheerful and there was no violence. LEGAL SUBMISSIONS Mr Taylor submitted that the defendants’ behaviour did not constitute disorderly conduct. He said the section read that “every person commits an offence . . . who in, or within the view of any public place, or within the hearing of any person therein, behaved in a riotous, offensive, threatening, insulting, or disorderly manner, or used any threatening or abusive or insulting words.” Mr Taylor said there was no evidence that anyone had behaved in such a manner. So it became a case of whether their behaviour in a public place “seriously offended” against those values of orderly conduct which were exercised by right-thinking members of the public. “I emphasise ‘seriously’,” said Mr Taylor. “My submission is that nobody could be

seriously offended by what the defendants did. “They were passive in every sense of the word, and all the witnesses agreed that the conversations were polite and courteous.” He submitted that there must be evidence of some prospective fear of trouble, some perturbation of the minds of people who could be legitimately perturbed, before a prosecution could be entered. There was no conduct which outraged anyone, and no persons were prevented passage up Parliament steps. “It seemed to be quite a jolly occasion—apart from the police being out in the rain—in which good conduct and orderly behaviour reigned.” POLICE VIEW Sergeant O’Donnell said the defendants were given all day to move. Several warnings and the fact that they did not move constituted disorderly behaviour. The Magistrate said that in View of the careful submissions by Mr Taylor he felt he should give some consideration to previous cases quoted and bring down a written decision in due time. He said the demonstrators were an independent group apparently divorced from the body carrying placards. They had chained themselves to the pillars “for reasons best known to themselves.” The Magistrate said he “acknowledged the sincerity of the defendants and their views.”