Editorial: Waihopai 3, sense 0

OPINION: Ignorance of the law is no excuse, we are often told, writes The Southland Times in an editorial.

Clearly it's not that simple.

It's hard to square that scolding old saying with the acquittal of the Waihopai 3; a teacher, a farmer and a friar who vandalised the spy base near Blenheim and argued in court, successfully, that they believed their actions were lawful.

It was a dodgy jury decision. Granted, it mightn't stick in the craw the way bad ones generally do, but the strong impression here is that a jury faced with an unpleasant task were presented with a chance to duck it, and seized upon it.

The Waihopai 3 aren't the worst guys in the world. They are men of conscience. That is not typically a get-out-of-jail-free card, however.

Many terrorists, abortion-clinic bombers, or even Maori activist vandals and John Minto-esque protesters are equally men of conscience.

Their treatment before the courts shouldn't come down to the likeability of their cause.

Legal experts say that the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Wahiopai trio didn't really believe at all that their actions were within the law.

You wouldn't think this would be so hard; that it would simply require the Crown to show a distinction between men believing their actions were legal, or merely believing that they ought to be legal.

Seriously, does anyone believe any of the defendants would have reacted with astonishment when told they were being charged with an offence?

As one of the three, Peter Murnane, said after the trial: "I had to do this. It was necessary for me."

The suspicion has to be that the defence was just strong enough to give the jury a chance to draw back from a decision they may have found distasteful, particularly given the palpable sincerity with which the men portrayed their actions as being for the greater good, to the point of saving lives elsewhere.

There will be no strict legal precedent here. When judges make decisions on matters of law, that sets precedent. But when juries make decisions on the particular facts of a particular case, it doesn't. Clearly, though, the publicity afforded this case will motivate others to try the same defence.

The "what if" brigade are already conjuring scenarios, from modern-day Hone Hekes to the rather pointed letter to this newspaper, from Bryan Forrest of Nelson, seeking the same treatment if he vandalised Catholic Church property.

The pat answer is that each case would be considered on its merits, as it should be.

As things stand, there's a pretty good chance the jurors would now have in the back of their mind the awareness that the Waihopai verdict went as it did.

Some would say that this is no bad thing and that juries are well placed to understand when, in the words of Scoop commentator Gordon Campbell, "no useful social purpose would be served" by a conviction.

Such decisions are best made collectively, as society determines what is legal and what is not, and applies that law uniformly.

The Crown should appeal the Waihopai decision. Idealism should be applied in creating laws or changing them, rather than in setting them aside when we're so minded.

- © Fairfax NZ News