OBITUARY:
HAROLD EVANS by Kate Dewes
Peace Researcher 33 –
November 2006
Harold Evans, former magistrate
(today’s equivalent is a District Court judge), accomplished musician, peace
campaigner and world-renowned “Father of the World Court Project”, died after a
long illness on Good Friday, 2006, aged 90. He was the son and grandson of Solicitors-General,
a Royal Air Force officer during World War 2, the husband of a German admiral’s
daughter*, personal assistant to Peter Fraser (who was Labour Prime Minister
from 1940-49) and Associate of New Zealand’s Justice Northcroft at the Tokyo International
Military Tribunal, which tried Japanese war criminals in the aftermath of the
Allied victory, sending several to the gallows. * Bringing home a German wife in the immediate post-war years was
definitely not the done thing, particularly one whose father had been both an
admiral and Hitler’s naval attaché to Japan.
There was a price for this – Harold lost his job as the Prime Minister’s
personal assistant. Ed.
Father Of The World Court Project
After his retirement in 1979 he joined
the Christchurch Peace Collective which, in 1986, organised the local visit of US
international lawyer Richard Falk. This was life-changing and set Harold on a
decade-long struggle to outlaw all nuclear weapons via an advisory opinion on
their legal status from the International Court of Justice, in The
Hague.
His many writings marshalled the
legal and moral arguments to underpin the project, and by example he inspired
many to join him. This amazing project succeeded in having resolutions passed
at both the World Health Assembly in 1993, and the United Nations General
Assembly in 1994, requesting two separate, but related opinions from the Court.
Although it started as a one-man crusade, it attracted support from over 700
organisations worldwide; most of the 110 Non-Aligned States, and over four
million individually signed declarations of public conscience. It was a testament to what one man could
inspire and lead in its early years.
My first contact with Harold was in
June 1979. I had not been back in Christchurch
very long and was not aware of his reputation as an independent thinking
magistrate who ruffled many collegial feathers by speaking out on a wide range
of legal issues. Harold phoned to ask if he could join our newly formed Peace
Collective. We had Owen Wilkes visiting at the time and he warned us that we
should vet all potential members in case we were infiltrated. Ironically, it
was Owen who gave Harold the “all clear” as he had been the judge who had given
him a very lenient community sentence for a charge arising from the 1973
protest at the US military base at Christchurch Airport*. It was from this
little group that Harold launched many of his open letters on issues of peace
and nuclear weapons. He rarely spoke of his experiences at the Tokyo War Crimes
Tribunal or as the secretary to Peter Fraser. It wasn’t until we were sorting
his papers for the Peace Collection in the University
of Canterbury’s MacMillan Brown
Library that I discovered he had written to Labour Prime Minister Walter Nash
in 1958 calling for immediate and unilateral suspension of nuclear testing and
had questioned NZ support for the British during the 1956 Suez
crisis. * The Special Issue of Peace
Researcher on Owen Wilkes – Number 31,
October 2005 – can be read online at http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/prcont31.html
Ed.
He never shied away from contentious
issues in court – for example, in 1967 he dismissed a case against a homosexual
couple (this was when homosexuality per
se was illegal. Ed.). In 1978 he wrote his first Open Letter opposing the appointment of former National Prime
Minister Sir Keith Holyoake (1960-72) as Governor General and sent copies to
all MPs in 1979. Over the next 20 years he published over 27 Open Letters or Memoranda at his own expense. They ranged from four to 170 pages
covering topics such as visits by nuclear ships, the roles of the Anglican
Church and the Queen in opposing nuclearism, the 1982 Falklands War, the 1981
South African Rugby Tour, the 1987 nuclear free legislation. He took every
opportunity to educate others about nuclear issues; for example he published
Lord Mountbatten’s final speech, opposing nuclear weapons, in the Press.
It was Professor Richard Falk that
sparked his enthusiasm for using international law and the World
Court. He was so inspired, he followed Falk to Auckland.
Later that year (1986) he met Sri Lankan Professor Christopher Weeramantry, and
jurist and former Liberal MP Ted St John in Australia
who convinced him of the case for the criminality of nuclear weapons. They
became close friends and advocates for the cause.
He also discovered an article by
Niall MacDermott, the Secretary General of the International Commission of
Jurists entitled “Are Nuclear Weapons Legal?”. He asked these four experienced
international lawyers to join him in his quest. The other two of his “six wise
men”, as he called them, were former Attorney General Dr Martyn Finlay and
former Ombudsman Sir Guy Powles. It was their opinions which formed the basis
of the Open Letter he personally
delivered to the Prime Ministers of Australia
and NZ in March 1987. He then sent it to all 73 UN member states with
representatives in both countries. Most responses were negative or
non-committal.
Ruffling The Feathers Of The Legal Fraternity
But Harold was undeterred – he set
about garnering support from the NZ International Commission of Jurists, the
Peace Foundation, and the NZ branches of Lawyers for Nuclear Disarmament and
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). He began to
receive significant media coverage both here and in Australia
for his idea and in October 1987 published a full page advertisement in the Press to mark Nuremberg Day (October 1, to commemorate the momentous
post-World War 2 Nuremberg trials
of Nazi war criminals by the victorious Allies. This spelt out the criminal
responsibility of those who violate the laws of war and rejected the “I was
only following orders” defence. Several defendants were hanged. Ed.). It
coincided with a five day legal conference in Christchurch
and was a way of educating the 2,000 lawyers attending. It called for a
permanent International Criminal Court, asked the lawyers to sign the appeal by
lawyers against nuclear war and to support his new project. As usual, no
support was forthcoming from the legal fraternity – many of whom were affronted
by the use of Open Letters – “it was
not the way lawyers worked”. Some local lawyers told me that they were shocked
by his choice of attire – a windbreaker and small haversack instead of a
lawyer’s suit and briefcase, and that “he didn’t embody the nuances, the
etiquette, the unwritten characteristics of the profession”. It was precisely
these characteristics that endeared him to the increasingly influential peace
movement here.
It must have been a lonely and
frustrating path for Harold at this time and he relied heavily on a small core
group to give him feedback on his ideas and help him promote them. As a diplomat
and lawyer, it was quite a challenge for him to learn to work cooperatively in
our small groups. He frequently attended rallies and marches against visits by
nuclear warships and nuclear testing – holding placards and speaking out
publicly. He even wrote letters to the Swedish government in protest at the
sentencing of Owen Wilkes to six months prison on Official Secrets Act charges,
in the early 1980s (although held in
custody and incommunicado for several days when arrested by Swedish security police,
Owen never actually went to prison. On appeal, he was given a non-custodial
sentence, including being expelled from Sweden
for ten years. See the Special Issue
of Peace Researcher on Owen Wilkes –
Number 31, October 2005 – which can be read online at http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/prcont31.html
Ed.).
He was pleased when in June 1988, as
a member of the Government delegation to the UN Special Session on Disarmament
in New York, I promoted the World
Court Project in my address to the delegates and began sounding out diplomats
and leading international non-government organisations (NGOs) in the UN. At
home, we gained unanimous support from the Public Advisory Committee on
Disarmament and Arms Control and Sir Guy Powles, Ted St John and Harold
addressed the Minister of Disarmament and the Committee. Despite this, the
1984-90 Labour government was not prepared to run with this alone.
It therefore became imperative to
garner more national and international support. A small band of committed Kiwis
gathered around Harold, inspired by his vision and enthusiasm. The doctors
secured support from their international body in 1988. Harold travelled to the UK
and convinced the International Peace Bureau (IPB) to take up the cause and
then almost single-handedly convinced the fledgling International Association
of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) to adopt a resolution in 1989. He
returned via Malaysia
where he addressed the Malaysian PPNW. They issued a joint appeal with lawyers
to all the Heads of Government attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting (CHOGM) in Kuala Lumpur.
Despite these resolutions being
passed, none of these organisations committed themselves to the project with
resources or enthusiasm. Harold became very frustrated with them and told them
so. He had carried the campaign at great personal expense for many years and
felt a growing sense of urgency for action. He tried again to convince lawyers
to speak out and give support by distributing Open Letters to all 3,000 delegates attending the Commonwealth Law
Conference in Auckland which
included 250 judges and Law Ministers from around the world. Professor
Weeramantry used his keynote address to challenge them to support the World
Court Project. But there was still no response.
With the election of a National
government in New Zealand
in 1990, there was no hope of any Government action on the initiative and it
languished for a while, until in 1991 Alyn Ware (head of the NZ branch of
IALANA) and I found support from quite a few nations to take up the baton. To
cut a very long story short, we were able to convince IPPNW, the IPB and IALANA
to launch the project publicly in Geneva
in 1992. Erich Geiringer, George Salmond and other NZ doctors played a key role
in getting a resolution passed in the World Health Assembly in May 1993 and by
October the 110 Non Aligned Movement (NAM) countries sponsored the UN
resolution requesting the advisory opinion on threat and use of nuclear weapons.
It caused a furore in the UN. The nuclear weapon states sent demarches to
capitals and threatened UN delegates with cuts to aid and trade (demarches – when powerful States send
representatives to the capitals of less powerful States to persuade them to
change their votes, policies, etc. “Persuade” is a diplomatic euphemism for
naked bullying and threatening. Ed). The pressure was too great and it was
deferred until 1994. After intense lobbying by international NGOs, and
committed leadership within the NAM,
the resolution went through – and NZ, under a conservative Government, voted
for it and spoke strongly at the Oral hearings at the Court in 1995.
“Contrary To The Rules Of International Law”
It took nearly 18 months for the
judges to give their opinion, and it was one of the most exciting nights of my
life to be with Harold and a crowd of politicians, the media and local well
wishers as the outcome was faxed through from Rob Green* at the Hague. Although
the judges dismissed the request from the World Health Organisation, it did not
dodge the question from the UN. * Kate pointed out in her eulogy at Harold’s
funeral that she owed her marriage to him. It was through the World
Court Project that she met Rob, then the head of the
British branch. Ed.
Among other things, the Court
advised that
… a threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the
rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the
principles and rules of humanitarian law,
and
… there exists an obligation
to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to
complete nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control’…
We were disappointed that the
Opinion was not as clear cut as it should have been. However, it has become a
benchmark for a whole range of activities by NGOs and governments, including
our own, to hold the nuclear weapon states accountable. The tenth anniversary
of the Court’s historic Opinion on July 8th was marked by a Mayors for
Peace-sponsored conference at The Hague,
and another to strategise about going back to the Court for another Opinion at
the European Parliament. Alyn Ware, Rob Green and I took these opportunities to
honour Harold’s pioneering contribution.
In 1996, the National government
awarded him a Queen’s Service Medal for his contributions to the judiciary and
the anti-nuclear movement. In 2001 Parliament passed a unanimous resolution
endorsing the World Court Opinion and calling on all nuclear weapon states to
pursue their obligations to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to
nuclear disarmament. In 2003 he received one of the eight inaugural Christchurch
Peace City
awards. In 2007 there will be an exhibition at the Canterbury
Museum marking the 20th
anniversary of the nuclear free legislation and the beginning of the World
Court Project. It will feature Harold’s contributions and will be a vehicle for
New Zealanders and tourists alike to follow Harold’s example of how they can
also make a difference by acting on his favourite dictum – “think globally, act
locally”.
A “CRIMINAL’S” FOND MEMORIES OF A JUDGE
-
Murray
Horton
I never worked with Harold Evans as
a peace activist nor saw him in action as such (although I did witness him
appearing as one of the hundreds of my fellow Springbok Tour defendants
arrested in Christchurch in 1981).
No, I knew him in the early 1970s when he was a magistrate and I was a
“criminal”, appearing in the dock of the Number One Magistrates’ Court with
monotonous regularity (if you want to disabuse yourself of any illusions about
how our class society works, spend a morning in the District Court). We had a
lot of fun with several cases, most famously when I was charged with refusing
to register for the then military service ballot for young men and claimed that
I was exempt on the grounds of being a minister of religion (good old
Pantheism). To the astonishment of the powers that be, he ruled that my church
actually existed but, as he couldn’t find any reference to prayer in my tenets
of faith produced in evidence, he ruled that I didn’t meet the legal definition
of a clergyman and convicted me. However, he ruled that, as I was so determined
to stay out of the Army (this was during the whole anti-Vietnam War struggle),
he’d recommend I get favourable consideration from the Conscientious Objectors’
Tribunal. I did, and became an official coward, according to my ex-prisoner of
war father. I have a vivid memory of going to the Court Theatre many years
later and just as my then partner and I were going in, up popped Mr Evans the
magistrate at my side and asked, with a mischievous grin “How’s your
church?”. I well remember going to his
chambers, in my capacity as a defendant, and noting that there was a piano
there, which he apparently played at every opportunity (as a young man he had
been torn between music and the law).
As Kate has mentioned, Harold (this
Christ’s College old boy was never “Harry”) was a reforming magistrate. He refused
to convict a man who had been transported in the boot of a Police car after
being arrested, as his way of punishing the Police for this illegal and
inhumane behaviour. I was only one of those from the progressive movement to
appear before him in those tumultuous years (some of his colleagues were rather
more keen to have me locked up), Owen Wilkes being the most high profile, as
detailed in Kate’s obituary.
The Fingerprints Case
Harold’s most famous case involving
a political activist was that of my original mentor, Keith Duffield (see my
obituary of Keith in Foreign Control
Watchdog, March 1979). In 1970, Keith was arrested at an anti-Vietnam War
protest (I was among the others arrested, so I witnessed what happened next,
through the bars of a cell door). He was a little bloke with one leg withered
by childhood polio but he was a handful. Adopting his policy of “total passive
resistance”, he refused to let the cops take his fingerprints or photo, despite
several of them using quite extreme force on him. To quote from an early 1970s
profile that I wrote on Keith (it appeared both in Canta, the University of Canterbury
student paper, and the shortlived NZ edition of Rolling Stone): “…The Police opposed bail because they wanted his
fingerprints but it was granted. His case was that the Police could obviously
identify him anyway and the magistrate agreed – ‘I never credited that a
magistrate would be game enough or honest enough to support an individual
against the State”. The magistrate, of course, was Harold Evans. The Police
appealed to the then Supreme Court and won, Keith appealed to the Court of
Appeal and lost, and was refused permission to appeal to the Privy Council in London.
The 1960-72 National government paid Keith and Harold a backhanded compliment
in one of its last legislative moves, making the taking of fingerprints
mandatory for everyone arrested. While his case was grinding through the courts
for several years, Keith was arrested at a protest at the US
base at Christchurch Airport
and the cops once again tried for half an hour to get his fingerprints,
including using choke holds. They failed again – they never did get his
fingerprints, or at least, not until he decided to let them do so.
So, Harold Evans was no ordinary
judge. He actually subscribed to the notion of justice as opposed to mindless
administration of the law. And he used the law to get mightily up the noses of
the powers that be, both in the criminal justice and the political
Establishments. I saw him irregularly over the years but counted myself
privileged to be invited to his 80th birthday party at Kate and
Rob’s home. Harold’s is the only judge’s funeral that I’ve attended, and I’m
pretty sure that it will be the only one. He was one out of the box. Rest in
peace, Your Honour.
----------------------------------