Aotearoa: 3 activists face court, 2 found not guilty!

First, pre-court press release:

Happy Valley Activists to Appear in Court

Three Save Happy Valley activists will appear in the Christchurch District Court at 10am this morning to defend their choice to take action to save a pristine ecosystem from destruction.

They face charges relating to an action at the headquarters of SOE Solid Energy in February this year. They have all been charged with unlawfully being on a building, while Daniel Rae also faces a charge of wilful trespass.
"To highlight the environment destruction that will be caused by Solid Energy's proposed mine in Happy Valley, we scaled the three storey high building in the middle of the night. In the morning there was a vocal protest outside the building and two of us hung of the concrete facade of the headquarters and unfurled banners," said Mr Rae.

"We have no choice but to take direct action against the proposed mine in Happy Valley. When the operations of a SOE push native species to extinction, destroy prime kiwi habitat and contribute to climate change then it's up to people to challenge business as usual," said Kristin Gillies, the second activist.

"Happy Valley, in the upper Waimangaroa valley, is home to thirteen threatened native species. The coal that would be extracted would be exported to Asia to be burnt largely in steel manufacturing," said Frances Mountier, Save Happy Valley Coalition spokesperson.

"With its support for a huge boom in the mining of coal and gold in Aotearoa, the Labour Government is sacrificing some of our most wild and pristine indigenous habitats for the sake of short term profit. People can't stand aside and let that happen," stated Mr Rae.

Notes:

The Save Happy Valley Campaign have been running a creative grassroots environmental campaign since April 2004 that has seen thousands of postcards sent to the government, coal trains blockaded, numerous protests at Solid Energy's headquarters, an extensive public education campaign and a continuous occupation of the proposed mine site that is into its seventh month. The group is planning further actions this summer in order to defend the Valley from any mining preparations.

See also: http://www.savehappyvalley.org.nz/

Then, the post court report from NZ's largest newspaper company:

Judge's ruling appears to set new protest rules
25 August 2006

A judge's ruling has virtually cleared the way for peaceful property occupations as protest.

Two Happy Valley coal mine protesters who occupied the roof of Solid Energy's Christchurch office building in February have had charges dismissed.

Christchurch District Court Judge Stephen Erber ruled that they could not be convicted of being unlawfully on the building when they had no intention of committing "any other offence".

But the third protester, Daniel Peter Rae, was convicted because he had already been served with a trespass notice.

He was convicted of trespassing and being unlawfully on the building and was fined $500 and ordered to pay $1150 for a barricaded door the police had to smash to get to the roof.

Judge Erber said Rae had three convictions for similar offending, but outside the court Rae said the ruling gave them a lawful way to protest.

"This is an interesting judgment. I'll continue to protest no matter what the judge said in court today. I feel strongly about this issue."

He will pay the penalties in weekly instalments over a few months.

The good-natured trial took just 45 minutes to hear all the evidence and legal argument, and Judge Erber gave his decision later in the day.

He allowed brief statements by each of the defendants when they gave evidence so they could establish they were genuine.

"But we are not going to have propaganda," he warned.

Before the court were Rae, 30, a community support worker, Kristin Adrian Gillies, 32, a student and part time disability support worker, and Jan Raoni Hammer, 25, a self-employed arborist.

Sergeant Scott Banfield of the police's tactical response group said the group was sent to the building and saw protesters on the footpath singing and chanting, two men hanging from the building and displaying banners, and a third man on the roof.

When he went to the doorway to the roof, he found it was locked. He used a hammer to break a hole and saw the handle was tied and a piece of wood was wedging it closed. He cut the rope and knocked the wood away.

He found Rae on the roof and told the other two to climb back up. They smiled and stayed.

"When I indicated we would come and get them and there may be some risk involved, they complied."

Mr Greig: "Did you give any consideration to other action such as starving them out or pouring water on them?"

Sergeant Banfield: "I would like to say yes, but no."

The office manager for Solid Energy, Kimberley Woods, said the protest had disrupted work and some staff had felt intimidated by the people on the roof and those protesting on the footpath in front of the building.

"We accept there are people opposed to the activities we undertake and we accept they have a right to voice their opinions and their opposition, but we don't accept they can come on to our building to do that," she said.

Rae said he accepted that he had been given a trespass notice by police to stay away from the building the previous year. Police produced the notice in court.

All three of the defendants gave evidence that they were there as part of a genuine protest.

Rae said: "We were there to engage in protest activity against Solid Energy's Happy Valley mine on the West Coast. We think open cast mining is incredibly destructive and is going to destroy a pristine ecosystem."

Gillies said: "I was there to highlight the urgency I see in the situation that is unfolding on the West Coast where species are being made extinct and Solid Energy's actions are contributing to climate change."

Hammer said: "I was attempting to highlight what I see as an horrific environmental track record and the fact that they are out to obliterate 13 threatened and endangered species including our national icon the kiwi, through open cast mining."

The charges against Gillies and Hammer were dismissed.

NB: In reality, the 2nd article was mistaken. No new, more lax protest rules were set in court. It was simply a slightly more obscure than usual law that was applied.