Peace Researcher 37 – November 2008
-
Bob Leonard
court reporter for Peace Researcher
On April 30, 2008, three Waihopai Ploughshares
activists slashed and deflated one of the domes over a satellite spy dish at
Waihopai. In the tradition of all Ploughshares actions, the Domebusters made no
attempt to flee the scene (for full details, see Peace Researcher 36, August
2008, “Pop Goes The Spybase”, by Murray Horton, which can be read online at http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr36-165.html
Ed). They appeared at a depositions hearing in Blenheim District Court on
September 18, to see and hear the case against them. The hearing took the
morning (which in court terms was from 10.15am to approximately 1pm).
Blenheim Courtroom Number One was just big
enough to accommodate members of the public, most of whom were supporters of
the defendants. The relatively high profile of the case meant that TVNZ was
there to film the entire proceeding. Reporters and some of the TV equipment
were accommodated in the jury box (the normal media section has just two
seats). The depositions hearing is apparently an endangered bit of the judicial
process in Aotearoa. The defendants already had their own copies of the
detailed evidence compiled by the Police. But the hearing was an opportunity
for the Police to present their witnesses and for the defence to question them
on the stand in front of the judge. It was also the occasion for the defendants
to enter pleas to the charges against them.
The presiding judge was Bruce Davidson (a name
familiar to those who followed the Ben Smart and Olivia Hope murder case in
The Case For The
Prosecution
An overview of the alleged offences of the
three Ploughshares defendants at the Waihopai base was presented by Police
prosecuting officer, Sergeant Steve Frost. The evidence included detailed
descriptions of just how the “intent to commit a crime” was carried out,
including transport, route to the site, method of entry through fences, damage
done, and the early morning weather conditions. Frost indicated there would be
four witnesses, three giving oral (or reading written) evidence and one
presenting videotaped interviews with Peter Murnane.
GCSB Witness Muddled
About Alarm Activation
The first witness was a security guard employed
at the base by the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), the
organisation that runs the base. Elizabeth Stove described how she and others
inside the base first became aware that something was amiss within the high security
area. She had done a routine patrol outside at about 4:30 a.m. and nothing out
of the ordinary was noted. At 6:06 a.m. an alarm on the outer fence was
activated. Stove then said a dome alarm was activated almost simultaneously. As
subsequent testimony by both the guard herself and defendants would show,
Stove’s description of the initial alarm activation was contradictory. To gain
access to the dome the defendants had to cut through an outer chainlink fence,
an inner electrified fence and a third fence around the dome itself before
getting close enough to slash the rubber dome. Under close questioning by
Peter, Ms Stove could not explain the obvious discrepancy in her description of
the alarms. She also conceded to Peter that the dome alarm even sounds very
different from the fence alarm.
Stove completed her testimony by describing her
encounter with the defendants beside the dome which was slowly deflating as she
approached (she could hear the loud emergency backup fan labouring to keep up
with the leaks). They were peaceful and cooperative, had made no attempt to
escape, and were praying at a makeshift shrine beside the dome when she
arrived. The prosecuting sergeant asked Stove about ground fog at the time of
the incident. She could not recall fog being a factor in the vicinity of the
dome, but subsequent Police testimony described the patchy fog as a problem
possibly relevant to the conduct of the criminal activity (perhaps probing for
an excuse for the security breach, albeit a rather lame excuse).
Two Written Briefs In
Evidence
The arresting officer, Sergeant Michael Porter,
read his brief to the court. He described the fog as so thick as they
approached the base at 7a.m. that they didn’t see the main entrance gate as
they drove past. Backtracking to the entrance Porter and fellow officers
entered the base and approached the three offenders. They were read their
rights and asked to list the various tools that they had in their possession
for use in gaining entry and damaging the dome. They were questioned about
their actions, and Peter remained silent when asked why they had slashed the
dome. Each had a bit of metal fencing in his pocket at the time of arrest. This
seemed of particular interest to the officers for some reason – the bits of
wire were simply souvenirs of the action.
Adi was questioned closely about their intent
and attempt to use a Mitsubishi truck (jointly owned by the three men) with a
hiab lift to gain access to the base interior without damaging the fences. The truck had become stuck in the mud as they
approached the base on a dirt road through a neighbouring vineyard. Determined
to continue their action they abandoned the truck and proceeded on foot with
the necessary tools. Gaining access to the outer security fence required that a
seven-strand farm fence be cut, the only damage done to private property in the
action. Photos of the scene, including
cut fences and the tools used, were presented in evidence. Plans of the dome
and dome area were presented; damage to the dome was described as six slashes
caused by sickles. A sample of the dome material was collected at the scene for
inclusion in the evidence. At the close of his testimony, Porter was asked to
identify the defendants in the courtroom, which he duly did.
The third witness was Detective Michael Wilson
with the criminal investigations branch (CIB) who also read his written brief
to the court. He was directed to speak to Sam Land at the scene. At this point
Sam chose to remain silent and asked to be able to contact his lawyer, Moana
Cole. He was advised by Moana that he could answer some questions. After
briefly describing the intent of the action Sam outlined some aspects of his
role in the early morning events. Prior to the truck becoming stuck Sam had
departed on a pushbike for the front gate in order to padlock it and thus delay
entry by the Police (he gave the padlock key to a GCSB staff member after they
were apprehended). He then rejoined the others for the break in. Sam was
questioned about all of the tools in their possession, about ownership and
registration of the truck, and about where they stayed in the area prior to the
action. He was asked about Ploughshares in
When asked if he knew the cost of the damaged
dome, Sam said he didn’t know but guessed about $100,000. When asked about the source
of that figure, he suggested it was from Nicky Hager’s 1996 book “Secret Power”
(there is no reference to dome cost in the book). The testimony also included
reference to the Anti-Bases Campaign as a source of information on the base.
When asked about possible future Ploughshares actions, Sam said he couldn’t
answer. At the end of questioning Sam was asked to endorse the detective’s
notes. He refused.
The Videotapes
The last Police witness was Detective Gavin
Nicholls who was on the day shift and was directed at around 9a.m. to speak
with Peter Murnane after the arrestees had been transported to the Blenheim
Police Station in a Police van. After being advised of his rights, Peter was
allowed to speak to Moana Cole for advice about giving a statement to Nicholls.
Peter consented to a limited interview and to videotaping using two video
machines producing simultaneous recordings. In the court there was confusion as
to which tape was which (apparently tapes one and two had not been labelled by
Police), so both had to be played briefly to sort out the confusion. The second
tape was then played in full. The information in both tapes was suppressed by
the judge after consulting with Peter Murnane, the defence counsel, and with
Police. Peter may challenge admissibility of the tape in the trial. At the
close of the Police presentation, Peter was asked by Judge Davidson if he
wanted to present any evidence at the hearing in view of the fact that he was
representing himself. He said no.
Who Owns The Spybase?
At this point Mike Knowles, lawyer for Adrian
Leason, asked to make a submission regarding the three charges against the
defendants. Knowles referred to evidence of ownership of damaged property: the
dairy farmer, whose fence was the first cut by the defendants, can be clearly
identified in relation to the third charge of property damage. But Knowles
submitted that there was no evidence presented as to the ownership of the
spybase fences or the dome. He submitted that the GCSB security guard was not
the owner of the base. Knowles suggested the three defendants could thus plead
guilty to the third charge if the other two charges of unlawful entry and
wilful damage were dropped. The submission was rejected by the judge based on
inferential evidence of base ownership given in Ms Stove’s testimony.
After a brief conference among the defendants
and their lawyers, the three men stood before the judge to hear his conclusion
that the evidence was sufficient for trial. When asked individually if they
chose to plead guilty to the charges, each replied “I do not”. No date has yet
been set for the trial, which will be held sometime in 2009. It should be noted
that a motion for change of venue for the trial to be held in
Bail conditions were renewed for the
defendants, which means that they can only enter the province of Marlborough
for the purposes of appearing in court or meeting their lawyers, and that they
must stay a specified distance away from any military facility (which may be
why the Royal New Zealand Air Force went to the absurd lengths of stepping up
security at its Woodbourne Air Base – which includes Blenheim Airport – on the
day of the hearing).
|
|
|
|
|