On May 1, seven anti-apartheid demonstrators were arrested for holding a banner, reading Mobilise May I - Stop the Tour, on the Aurora Terrace motorway overbridge. The banner was hung over the bridge railings to face oncoming traffic and advertise that evening's anti-tour march.

The trial of the "Aurora seven", as they became known, took place on July 7. They were charged that "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse they obstructed a footpath." The judge, N.C. Jaine, dismissed them before hearing any evidence from the defence, finding that there was in fact a reasonable excuse.

But the major revelation, shown in the police evidence, was of the role they had played in the events of May 1; and it is a role they are likely to play again during the Springbok tour.

Peaceful political protest

The police had been called to the scene by a motorway engineer, who said the banner was a traffic hazard. On arrival the police had several discussions with the demonstrators and among themselves. It became clear to the demonstrators that the major police concern was with the banner, and not any obstruction of the footpath.

One police officer said "If you don't remove the banner you will be arrested for obstructing the footpath". However, even in the Judge's view, the obstruction to the footpath was only minor. But this is no excuse under our law. Even if no one is obstructed, you can still be guilty of obstructing the footpath.

The Judge presented his verdict immediately after lunch, not allowing any defence to be presented. The Judge said the defendents had been pursuing a political protest in a peaceful way on a day which had some significance. He said, in consideration of the protest "I am satisfied, on the balance, that there was a reasonable excuse for their [the Aurora Seven] actions in relation to the footpath obstruction".

A matter of extreme importance

Referring to the presence of 22 picketers in the court to support the Aurora Seven, Judge Jaine said he suspected that "there are present who see the charge as being a matter of judicial importance". He was right, as he was right when he also said "There will be absolutely no doubt that the Springbok tour is a matter of extreme importance and signficanee which is of concern to all thinking New Zealanders."

However, his judgement left open the possibility of people being arrested under similar circumstances again; perhaps either on different charges, or, if more people were being obstructed, on the same charge.

What the trial shows is the role the police play in these matters. The demonstration itself was entirely legal, but the people involved were pursuing political objectives. How many people are arrested for putting up banners advertising school fairs, even though they are a similar traffic hazard? Charges such as this one are almost never brought against people other than protestors, or the "idle and disorderly". Clearly the police can and do use charges such as this to hinder or stop people from exercising their democratic right to protest.

Why remove the banner?

It was the clear that the major police concern was to remove the banner and end the protest. When asked by George Rosenberg "Why, if your concern was the obstruction, did you remove the banner?", the reply of the police witness that "well, we thought someone might steal it", brought groans and laughter from those in the court.

The role the police can play in preventing us from freely demonstrating against the Springbok tour is something we should all bear in mind.

Paul Jones