3News » Home
Full Story

Waihopai spy base trial - protestors not guilty

37 comments | Post Comment email Email printer friendly Print    Text Size:
aA
aA
aA
Adrian Leason, Peter Murnane, Samuel Land each faced charges relating to the damage of Waihopai spy base (NZPA)

Adrian Leason, Peter Murnane, Samuel Land each faced charges relating to the damage of Waihopai spy base (NZPA)

video
UPDATED AT 8:01PM
Published: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 5:50p.m.

Three peace activists walked free today even though they admitted breaking into a Government spybase near Blenheim and slashing an inflatable plastic dome covering a satellite dish.

A jury in Wellington District Court took only two hours to find schoolteacher and part-time farmer Adrian Leason, Dominican friar Peter Murnane, and farmer Sam Land not guilty of all charges against them.

The men were each charged with two charges of wilful damage and one of burglary, after they were arrested at the Waihopai facility, operated by the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) in April 2008.

The trio looked quietly relieved at the verdict, while the packed public gallery erupted into applause and a standing ovation.

The trio readily admitted attacking the base, but said they were driven by a belief that the satellite caused human suffering and their actions to shut it down, if only temporarily, were lawful.

The group had accomplished its mission, a delighted Adrian Leason said outside the court.

"Our little...action is, in a sense complete. We've prepared, we've done an action, we've had the trial, we've given each other a hug and now it's over," he told NZPA.

The father of seven said he would now gather his family and supporters and head back to Otaki to celebrate.

And the appropriate manner to celebrate the day of their vindication?

"Food and beverages and singing and a mighty fine party," Mr Leason said.

Peter Murnane, who represented himself throughout the trial, said the action taken by the group had been successful.

"We wanted, in going into Waihopai, to challenge these warfaring behaviours and I think we have done this," he said.

"We have shown New Zealanders there is a US spy base in our midst."

Australian non-violence activist Bryan Law, who had come across the Tasman to support and blog about the trial, said the jury's decision accorded with those made by other jurors in similar cases in other countries.

"Of all of the millions of people that marched in 2003 (to protest the Iraq War), had only 1 percent of them taken this sort of action, the war would not have been possible.

"We don't need to be saved by the politicians - we can save ourselves.

In his closing arguments today, Leason's lawyer Michael Knowles said the men were driven by a belief that the satellite caused human suffering and their actions to shut it down, if only temporarily, were lawful.

"That belief doesn't have to be correct," he said.

"They had a belief in a higher law, a law for protecting people."

Murnane said he believed the satellite aided crimes against humanity.

"I had to do this, it was necessary for me," he said.

Land's lawyer, Tony Shaw, said his client genuinely believed his actions were lawful, and he should be acquitted.

Crown prosecutor Glen Marshall said the men deliberately and intentionally damaged the satellite cover hoping, rather than believing, their actions were lawful.

"It's not a belief, it's something less - a hope, an expectation, an opportunity,"

NZPA

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Comments [37]

Sarah
22 Mar 2010 6:36p.m.

@ linda grammer: honourable? so you are happy that your taxes will go toward fixing the huge damage bill these idiots caused? you'd be happy if another catastrophic incident like 9/11 occurred when it could have been prevented by this type of technology?

I still hope for the day when vandalism of property under the guise of 'protest' is considered violent protest. these idiots should have been thrown in jail and made to repay the damage they caused because our taxes are needed elsewhere.

Mike
20 Mar 2010 10:16a.m.

The reason the Crown lost the case was because they tried to charge them with intentional damage as opposed to the more appropriate charge of sabotage. Sabotage deals with attacks on military infrastructure. The Crown & GCSB were too afraid that they would have to take the stand and answer questions during cross-examination as their ‘neither confirm nor deny’ response wouldn’t cut the mustard in court, they would have had to answer questions. They avoided laying that charge and left the defendants with the defence that they won with. The damage to their dome was insignificant compared to the damage they would bring upon themselves if they had to answer questions and be honest about their activities to the public. They lost because they are scared to face the public about what they do, and for whom…

bukster
18 Mar 2010 7:24p.m.

While I personaly support the activists' actions, a not guilty verdict is simply not correct. They did do it and it was an illegal act. This shows a problem with the jury system. The jurors are not legal experts and can be swayed by an emotive arguement. This would be no different from say, a cannabis activist saying the dope laws are wrong and the jury agrees and aquits him of a charge he is legally guilty of. While this may be a worthwhile mistake, imagine if Clayton Weatherston's emotional arguement had swayed the jury is his case? Imagine if you were on trial and the jury consisted of a bunch of sobbing old women listening to the crown's emotional arguement as to why you are such a wicked person. This is no way for justice to be decided. But on a personal note, Good for them! Let's get rid of that damn base!

!
18 Mar 2010 7:06p.m.

To Medusa, It wasn't just a random act of breaking the law. These guys have been working to help others and promote peace their WHOLE lives.. It would have been different if one day they decided to do the act if they hadn't been living messages of peace their whole lives but because they have been, it was ok. I personally believe that is why they got the not guilty verdict. I know if I did something like that I would be found guilty because even though I do care about world peace I've never really done anything about it so the jury wouldn't have been able to know if my act was genuine. However, because these guys have been living peace messages their whole lives and acting peacefully, etc it would've been clearer to the jury that this act was genuinely out of faith and for what they believed to be a good cause. Also, the media didn't cover anything about what the jury really heard, so it's ridiculous to be targetting them.

Linda Grammer
18 Mar 2010 4:09p.m.

Our farming family was very pleased to hear the good news about the juries decision to acquit these honorable men.
We are very proud of these courageous individuals- taking a stand against the US Waihopai spy base in the South Island.
the spy base should be booted out of NZ. spying is not only intrusive into the lives of individuals and sovereign nations, but in this case, clearly the U.S. spying activities would have shown that Saddam Hussein had NO weapons of mass destruction, had NO ties to Al Quadea...instead the United States chose to lie and fabricate false reasons for an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation (Iraq)
killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians (and of course the low income U.S. soldiers who foolishly went to war also suffered horribly)

Another proud day for NZ, leading the way in being nuclear free, GE free, and not participating in illegal wars/invasions (ala Iraq)

Hurrah for the jurors who acquited these brave souls.

Andrew
18 Mar 2010 1:46p.m.

Interesting in so many ways. One thing to remember is that democracy is not perfect and most countries have laws, procedures and agreements that are unjust, unfair and unethical. Unfortunately, often extreme action is necessary to cause change.

Unethical practices include most wars; human, other species, arms and drug trafficing; slavery; global warming; environment destruction; and so on. Recent and current NZ examples are supporting unjust wars, patients dying on waiting lists, certain criminal releases, water misuse, fishing endangered species, increased coal mining, and so on.

Perhaps our sense of personal security is threatened when property laws appear to be overridden in court. Do we really fear that peace protesters and greenies will sabotage services that affect our lifestyle? Or is our blanket respect for all law more important than international peace, human health and a sustainable planet?

Joe
18 Mar 2010 5:22a.m.

Dangerous precedent to set for NZ justice system. Though I agree with the right to protest 100 percent, the trio crossed the line when property was damaged, regardless of whose it was. NZ now looks like a pack of village idiots in the eyes of the world, thanks a lot to the jury...

Anthony
18 Mar 2010 3:01a.m.

Most commentators here don't seem to get it. Intent and motivation are fundamental concepts in our legal system. This decision, more than most, demonstrates that the the NZ legal system is working as it should.

MEDUSA
18 Mar 2010 2:58a.m.

What a bunch of losers. So we can basically go round breaking the law when ever we feel like it and come up with a lame excuse that someone on the other side of the world was going to die. Please. Bunch of Red Neck Hippies.

BAS
18 Mar 2010 12:56a.m.

My deepest condolences for the death of the NZ judicial system.

Post a comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide here
Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Comment:



3News Video 3News Audio

Post your opinion

3News - What changes would you make to MMP?
The Govt and lobby groups are urging people to have their say on
Comments (3)