Squatters discharged

SAC & police bungling revealed

On Wednesday, July 17 in the Lower Hutt Court, Mark Derby and Dennis O'Reilly were both charged with the alternate charges of being unlawfully on premises without intent or wilful trespass by refusing to leave premises under the express authority of the legal owner, the State Advances Corporation (Sack). Their second charge was resisting arrest by obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty.

The charges related to the TPA squat in a vacant Woburn SAC flat on June 17 which ended with seven squatters being arrested. The prosecution opened their case by questioning the SAC officials involved. They told the court how they had called the legal tenant, Mrs Rerekura, on Monday, and arranged to pick her up and take her to the Lower Hutt Police Station. Under cross-examination by Mr Hugh Rennie, defence counsel, the circumstances under which the legal tenant was found were explained. It was shown that the SAC might have arranged a hasty cover-up for the prolonged vacancy of the Woburn flat. It seemed State Advances only tried to find a tenant for the flat after discussion with TPA during the first week in June. In fact the tenancy agreement had been back dated from June 14 to June 13.

Thursday June 14 was the original date set by TPA for the squat. The court was left to draw its own conclusions.

Next Sergeant Keogh of the Lower Hutt Police, who had been in charge of the police actions, told the court how the squatters would not come out of the flat unless State Advances gave an assurance that Mrs Andrews would be allocated a flat. He had replied that 'this was another matter'. According to the sergeant 'on entry of the police, the two defendants resisted, a violent struggle ensued which lasted a few seconds. It was necessary to hand-cuff both the defendants'. When asked for more detail the sergeant said of Mr O'Reilly, 'his boots came in my direction'. The court was told later that this happened in a three foot wide and six foot long passage containing two mattresses, three armchairs, four squatters and four police.

Defence again elicited new facts. An earlier police patrol had first asked the squatters to leave, then changed their minds and said that no-one was to leave the flat. Although the sergeant in command, had not been aware of this at the time of the arrests it was later verified by another police officer.

Mr Rennie also showed how the situation was perhaps mis-managed because of police inexperience in this type of situation. When the squatters had asked to speak to the State Advances officials, this was the usual step in negotiations. Mr Rennie suggested when the door finally came down that it would have been simple to say 'you are under arrest' and enter peacefully. The sergeant said this was impossible because 'the immediate entry of police met a violent reception'.

'As we tried to move into the flat the defendants came out at us.' And then 'the defendants attacked me,' the next witness Constable Olston testified. It was important to establish who went through the door first and consequently who made the first aggressive move. The defence claimed that a moustached constable had entered first. When questioned about this the witness denied that any of the policemen who entered the flat had a moustache. Moreover he didn't think that any policeman in his section had one. Yet later another police witness gave different evidence. The actual questioning was:

Rennie: For the defence. Did Constable Burnside go through the door first?

Hubbard (police witness): He went through with Olston.

Rennie: And which one of the constables has a moustache?

Hubbard: Constable Burnside.

Another point was whether the constable had told the offenders that they were under arrest before taking hold of them. Both the defendants and the defence witness said they heard no such warning immediately prior to being physically arrested. The defence counsel asked Olston that if no-one else heard his statement of arrest, would it raise any doubts whether or not he had said it. The constable replied 'No'.

These differences in parts of the police evidence made it difficult for the court to work out what had happened. Not only did the police evidence differ from the defences' but also their own evidence was contradictory on important points.

Olston's final point was that he handcuffed the other male squatters although they offered no resistance, simply because he 'expected resistance and wanted to remove the possibility'.

After the lunch adjournment the police prosecutor requested a change in the charge. He wanted the words 'legal occupier' changed to 'legal owner' because of what he claimed was a 'clerical error'. The possibility, however that he wanted the change because the defence counsel's cross-examination emphasised that the charges had been iniated by the SAC rather than the tenant is hard to ignore. This meant that as Mrs Rerekura was the proven legal occupier but would not press charges, the SAC had no legal grounds for pressing charges.

In their summary the defence asked whether there was any necessity for the force the police used in making the arrest and suggested that any force O'Reilly and Derby might have used was in response to the excessive force used by the police. Mr Rennie then explained the defendants' motives to the court. TPA wanted to find accommodation for Mrs Andrews and secondly to protest against the three month long vacancy of the SAC flat. O'Reilly explained, in his defence, that if TPA had known of the tenant the SAC had arranged the squatters would not have moved in, and that in a squat there was usually discussion with the police, not aggression by the police.

The police cross-examination was characterised by sarcasm and rude badgering of the defendants and their witness.

For example:

Police: You heard that the police said you were under arrest?

O'Reilly: No.

Police: Why didn't you?

O'Reilly: It was not audible to me.

Police: Is there anything wrong with your hearing?

O'Reilly: No.

Police: Nothing?

O'Reilly: No.

The same type of pointless sarcastic questioning was used on the other defence witness. This indicated the police feeling towards the case. When Mark Derby's interpretation of the events differed from the other defence witness the police cross-examiner said 'You don't even agree with O'Reilly!" Was he suggesting that every witness should try and match evidence?

It was left to the defence's counsel to explain to the police how they could have peacefully controlled the situation. Mr Boyd showed how the size of the corridor only required the police to stand in the door-way and that keeping all the facts in mind Derby and O'Reilly used only a reasonable degree of force in self-defence. Mr Rennie noted the SAC mis-handling of events and said the case was a 'tragedy of errors'.

The magistrate, Mr Horn from Pale merston North said he understood and accepted the good motives of the defendants. He recognised the right and necessity to protest but it should be kept within the law. The defendants were found guilty on both charges and discharged under section 42 of the Crimes Act. They were ordered to pay $15 court costs on each charge.

The case showed up faults within the police system which need immediate attention.

The recurrent over-reaction and bumbling of the police in their methods of arrest in most types of political confrontations and their court techniques of laying incorrect charges and clerical errors seems to have a deliberate purpose. Firstly it is a punishment for the defendant before any proof of guilt. The numerous court cases which result from the need to clarify police handling of the arrest puts defendants under a mental strain. For this case there were five court appearances, The first on June 18, the last not until July 17. Secondly, police and magistrates are highly paid for their work while defendants have to miss their work or study, and consequently suffer.

The police evidence and court-room techniques clearly displayed their inconsiderate inefficiency. The way the police handled the Woburn situation often showed a blind adherence to the rule book. Initiative in allowing negotiation rather than aggression would have achieved discussion and probably a better outcome with the State Advances Corporation. The arrests could have been avoided altogether, but at the very least they could have been executed without violence. The reasons behind these faults reflect a general attitude of law enforcement, the belief that protection of private property, especially state property, is more important that people.

— Christine Haggart