SQUATTER IN STATE HOUSE

Chronicle (Levin), 31 January 1947, Page 2

SQUATTER IN STATE HOUSE

-Press Association

Police Prosecuted Under Wrong Act ,

By Telegraph-

WELLINGTON, Jan. 30. A charge against a ' ' squatter ' ' who took possession of a" State house at I Naenae, has been dismissed in a reserved' judgment given by Mr. Thompson, S.M. Defendant was cliarged under a seetion of the Polite Offenees J Act which. the Magistrate held did not ^ apply. The case was heard at Lower ELutt last weelc. ( Defendant Norman Stanley Harman, , men's outlitter, was cliarged with be- ] ing unlawfully on preinises but not in circumstances disclosing the commission or intent to commit any other oft'ence. Dismissing the charge the Magistrate i upheld the contention oy counsei for dej fendant, Mr. J. A. Oakley, that his i client was guilty of trespassing and therefore the particular seetion of the Police Offenees Act under which he was i prosecuted, could not be invoked. The Magistrate said the following facts given in the case were not disputed. Defendant, his wife and child of sonie 18 months were, during the iatcr part of 1940', living in one room in Wellington. The lloor of the room was below tlie ground level. The room was suniess. A notice was received from the : Wellington City (Jouncii that the room must be vacated. A second child was j born on November 5. Defendant 's wife | was discharged from the maternity j liospital on December 7 and she refused j to live in the room. Defendant, who ! had been negotiatmg with_ the Btate I Advances Corporatiou for 18 months for ' a house, went to Naenae on December i 8 and found an unoccupied house wilh

the back door open. He returned to Wellington to obtain his bedding and eff'eets and moved into the house with 1 liis wife and children at 1U o 'clock that j night. On the following Monday he [ movea his furniture into the house and'j he had remained there ever since. He • was interviewed at the house by Ser- 1 geant Adams of the Lower Hutt Police, j who told him he was in unlawful occu- 1 pation of the residence which was still j in the hands of the contractors who had j made complaints. Defendant made a i written statement, the linal paragraph 1 of which read: "I was under the irnpression that the house had been handed over to the Gtate 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 preinises. I will pux up with the consequences. I have no place to go. I am not going to remove my family. 1 have no intention of vacatmg the house until sucH time as the Btate Advances Corporatiou provide me with alternative acconunodation. " Un the afternoon of January 6 Bergeant Adams again interviewed defendant at his place of business and was informed by defendant that he was still in the house. The sergeant told him act-ion would . be taken against him if he did not vacate immediately. Defendant repiied that he would not go. That evening the sergeant ealled on defendant at tlie house and inspected the premises with him. Defendant 's wife with a child in arms and another aged about 20 months, who was in bed reeuperating from brunchitis and pneumonia, viere there. Defendant stated he did not iutend to leave and would put up with tlie consequences as he had no piace lo go. Bergeant Adams stated there was no qucstion as to defendant 's rcspectability. He could not be classed as' a rogue and vagabond. Mr. Oakley had -submitted for tlie defence that bectiou 54 of the Police Offenees Aci was uever framed with the vievv to such a- prosecution. Tue seetion j was coupled with Eection 52 and 53 1 under the heading of rogues and vagabonds whereas the police evidenee was I to tlie eff'ect that defendant could not ! be considered a rogue and vagabond but was entirely re spectable. The evi j dcuce, he contended, sliowcd that an other off'ence has been committed by , defendant — trespass. ' ' 1 have considered the submissions by Mr. Oakley," said Mr. Thompson, "and I 1 ave been unable to ffnd anything helpful in the authorities but it seems incontrovertible that the essence of Bection 54 is that there is no off'ence under the seetion if the circumstances show that some other off'ence has been committed or that there is intention to (-oimu.it some other off'ence. " It seemed elear, he added, that the off'ence of wilful trespass had been committed and defendant intended to continue committing that off'ence. That being- so it also appeared clear that Bection 54 could not be invoked as it could only be ( used ' ' where the circumstances did not j disclose the commission of or an intention to, commit any other off'ence. ' ' The Magistrate dismissed the charge.; No further charge has been laid by | tlie police against Harman and inquir- 1 ies made today, failed to ascertain 1 whether there would be one. ! ; . i