Dome was damaged 'for the greater good'
BY MICHAEL BERRY
Relevant offers
The acquittal of the three activists on trial for attacking the Waihopai spy base has been met with anger on the streets of Blenheim.
Teacher Adrian Leason, 45, Dominican friar Peter Murnane, 69, and farmer Sam Land, 26, were yesterday acquitted of charges of burglary and wilful damage after they deflated a dome at the Government Communications Security Bureau base in the Waihopai Valley in April 2008.
They admitted their actions, but used a "greater good" defence, saying that they were trying to save lives overseas.
A Wellington jury took two hours to come to its decision.
A similar defence, known as the greater good defence, has been used by protesters in Britain, Ireland and Germany.
In 2006, a jury acquitted five peace campaigners who used an axe and hammers to cause US$2.5 million damage to a United States Navy plane that was refuelling at Shannon airport, Ireland, in 2003 on its way to Kuwait to deliver supplies for use in the impending war.
The Marlborough Express asked people on the streets of Blenheim this morning what they thought of the acquittal.
Blenheim banker Craig Corban of Blenheim said it was "ridiculous" that the men were let off and he was not impressed with their greater good defence.
"You can use an excuse for everything. At the end of the day, you can't go around damaging property to prove a point.
"They were guilty of doing it and they were let off."
Bruce Bromwich, a Rarangi network engineer, said it was "wrong".
"Quite simply, the defence doesn't stand up. It's a pretty grey defence."
Mr Bromwich did not believe the spy base was killing people overseas as the protesters said, but he did not know what the base actually did.
"You've got to have trust in your government for some things."
Mr Bromwich was upset that taxpayers would be footing the bill for the incident, a stance shared by Blenheim real estate agent Robbie Moore.
"Even if they had been found guilty, they wouldn't have been able to get [the protesters] to pay up," Mr Moore said.
"It's just a political way of getting out of it. Nobody else could do that much damage and get away with it."
Mr Moore said the base was necessary to ensure safety from foreign extremists.
"If it makes it makes it safer on our airplanes with the information it gathers, then it's better to have it than not."
Havelock field researcher Tanya O'Brien did not agree with the need for the base and said she would like to see it closed.
"Why have we got an American spy base in Blenheim anyway?"
She agreed with the defence and was elated that the protesters were acquitted.
Marlborough mayor Alistair Sowman said the verdict sent a poor message and might tempt others to try similar stunts.
"I can't understand how you can damage property and walk away without a conviction. That seems very strange to me."
He believed the defence was "silly".
"It flies in the face of common sense."
Marlborough district councillor Gerald Hope said the event was an "absolute waste" of taxpayers' money, as well as disruption to the work that the base did.
"If I was a juror, I would have have wanted a conviction. The cost alone was worth a conviction."
Kaikoura MP Colin King compared the defence of "for the greater good" to the defence of provocation being used.
"It's a defence for doing something that is wrong. But that's the legal system."
Ploughshares activist group spokesman Graham Cameron said he was satisfied and relieved with the verdict.
The men were now looking forward to getting back to everyday life, their jobs and families, he said.
Mr Cameron said did not believe the verdict would encourage another attack on the spy base.
"Hopefully, it will encourage great debate about the role Waihopai has in our country."
The Government should be held responsible for the cost of replacing the dome, because the base "drained" $50 million a year from the economy, he said.
Green Party candidate Steffan Browning said he was in Wellington when the trio came out of court, and he congratulated them in person outside the courthouse.
The verdict showed that "justice and morality can run together" in New Zealand, he said.
He believed the US Government should pay the bill to repair the dome, because it was effectively a US base.
- The Marlborough Express
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
This trio wilfully damaged private property and admitted it. They should be charged to the full extent of the law, best case scenario would be to pay the million dollars worth in damages in reparation. The "greater good" would really mean simply to get rid of people like these three.
I am delighted that a jury acquitted these brave people who have the courage to stand up to the Empire of Greed. I only hope I live long enough to see the beautiful Waihopai Valley cleared of these bloated and sullying symbols of US imperialism."
Those same symbols give you the freedom to post on this message board and go about your life with free speech. Would you prefer if you were repressed and had no rights? If thats the case your more than welcome to move to somewhere like China. Anybody who thinks these men are courageous are wrong, these men are nothing but cowards who stand for nothing.
When did our Justice System turn Utilitarian, and how did destroying it contribute to the greater good anyway. It just cost the tax payers a bunch of money. This has to be over turned on appeal
If the police actually charged them for tresspassing and vandalism then they would have been charged, but the police went for a more serious charge and they got off that charge.
These guys know they are lucky the police mucked up here, i totally condone there actions as 2 wrongs dont always make it right.
i also think it is silly that the police have to prove there claims right, that innocent people die from it, instead of these people having to prove that it kills people.
Where is the justice?
As an antitheist, this verdict & the reaction to it is great news. I can now run around desecrating religious properties for the greater good because I think people need saving from them and I'll get Green party endorsement for doing so. Who's with me?
What? By deliberate property damage? At the end of the day, they went into someone's property and damaged it. Their defence was "Oh we THINK it's costing people their lives". Not only is this an idiotic defence but they don't know for certain, nor have proof that it would be costing people's lives. In fact, if the job of the dome is intelligence gathering in purposes of defences, which seems more likely considering its location, they just successfully put people's lives in danger by sabotaging the facility. With the same defence, you can go out and sink NZ naval boats because you think it's going to be used for purposes of war, fire bomb the barracks an cause general anarchy in the name of greater good. One thing I would like to ask the prosecutor is what possessed them to muck up jury selection like that.
This whole thing smells of a buy off. Unfortunately, there are going to be some cell phone towers near schools (and the like) that are now freely open to attack. The only safe people will be ones who don't have any property to be trashed by paranoid activists..
We need to get rid of juries. Getting judged by your peers sounds great in theory, but in practice you often end of with paranoid dingbits. We need professional judges to make the decisions.
The money spent on repairs could have bee used fo cancer research. 'Greater good'?
Since when did a farmer, preacher and a teacher thinks they are knowledgable in international warfare and terrorism prevention.