Editorial: Verdict puzzles many in Marlborough

OPINION: New Zealand and its media do not have access to juries like other countries, where jurors can be questioned after a verdict.

There will be no way of knowing what went on in a jury room in Wellington this week. But you can take a pretty good guess.

The Waihopai three were acquitted after the jury deliberated for only two hours.

Teacher Adrian Leason, 45, Dominican friar Peter Murnane, 69, and farmer Sam Land, 26, were found not guilty of burglary and wilful damage at the Waihopai spy base in April 2008. The men admitted they had broken into the base and deflated one if its domes.

Their lawyers and one of the men – Peter Murnane – who acted for himself, successfully argued they took the action to bring about a greater good.

The New Zealand legal system has a number of defences for doing something that is wrong. This is now one of them. And why was it accepted by the jury?

The jury would have seen three men who wouldn't normally say boo to a goose. They were impassioned and articulate.

They had a cause they truly believed in which placed the mechanics of modern warfare against the loss of innocent life. The jury would have seen an action which caused very little damage.

This is how Adrian Leason presents himself on his web page: "I am a small-time organic gardener on a two hectare farm and a part-time primary school teacher. I am married and a father of six young children. I am a parishioner at St Mary's, Otaki. In the past few years I have worked as a senior advisor with Child, Youth & Family in Wellington after my family and I spent three years in Asia, living in a slum helping with community development."

That is the person who the jury judged in court.

In some circles the outcome was unremarkable. Lawyers questioned after the verdict say it was indeed, unexceptional, and would not make case law, given the decision was reached by a jury and not a judge delivering a ruling.

Marlborough people and many others have been left wondering how it happened. It has left some angered, but most just bewildered.

Palpably it was a very, very smart decision to move this trial to Wellington.

The jury would have been middle class, possibly with many civil servants and at a guess, with enough women to bring in such a verdict. Wellington is a liberal city. If it had been moved to Auckland, for argument's sake, it is doubtful the decision would have been the same.

In Marlborough there has been disbelief that people can break into a property, vandalise it and get away with it. The break in lead to damage that cost taxpayers more than $1 million to fix. It has set a precedent for such actions.

Would people here have listened to the same evidence and argument and come to the same conclusion? The men's lawyers thought otherwise.

There is more than just Cook Strait that separates Marlborough from Wellington.

- The Marlborough Express