Editorial: Waihopai verdict hard to comprehend

OPINION: From a narrow legal perspective, the Waihopai spy base wilful damage acquittal cannot be seen as a precedent.

Technically, it is only one jury decision on a particular case, involving three protesters who admitted breaking into the base and damaging an inflatable plastic dome covering a satellite dish. Legal precedents are set following judicial decisions on matters of law – which might still happen in the likely event of a Crown appeal on the jury's decision.

However, the trial's outcome is both ground-breaking and extraordinary. It is suggested that it is the first time the "greater good" defence has been used successfully in this country. In that sense, the case might well represent a precedent, as it is a line that other legal teams will now attempt to follow.

It is not too much of a stretch to find parallels with the controversial provocation defence, which has been successfully used in several murder trials – particularly involving so-called "gay panic" killings. Provocation did not succeed the last time it was used in a high-profile case – by the lawyers acting for Clayton Weatherston – and the Law Commission has been arguing for many years that has no place in the New Zealand legal system.

The Waihopai verdict is polarising and some responses have been extreme. The Anti-Bases Coalition wants the satellite base's operators prosecuted for "crimes against humanity". Whaleoil blogger Cameron Slater, who is currently facing charges related to identifying people with name suppression, was quick to hail the finding and find solace in the principle of a "higher law" justifying actions that would otherwise be illegal.

Marlborough Mayor Alistair Sowman finds it "very strange" that people can damage property and walk away without conviction. He is not alone in that, and an obvious concern is that the acquittal will send a dangerous message to others who might now be encouraged to attempt similar stunts. Operators of a wide range of controversial activities – from mining, power generation and intensive farming to genetic modification research and abortion facilities – will fear that they will now be more even more tempting targets for extremists.

The Waihopai protesters claim their raid prevented the suffering of others. That is arguable at best. The base is owned by the Government Communications Security Bureau, but operated as part of a United States-controlled intelligence network. How severely the stunt compromised the network is not clear. The defendants also argued that they genuinely believed their actions were legal. It is difficult to comprehend how a jury accepted that contention.

Although the base's presence has been well known in the top of the south for some years, the security breach and subsequent legal process have brought greater national attention to its activities – one aim the protesters and their supporters have succeeded with. This does not mean, however, that they will have achieved anything to further the main aim on their wish-list – permanent closure. If anything, attitudes will become more entrenched than ever.

- © Fairfax NZ News