Protest singer's court victory angers police
Auldyun
Protest singer's court victory angers police
By SANDRA COX - The Press | Saturday, 5 May 2007
A West Coast man who staged a singing protest outside a Greymouth
policewoman's house has won his appeal to New Zealand's highest court.
The majority Supreme Court decision overturning the disorderly-behaviour
conviction of Allistair Brooker has angered the Police Association, which
says it opens the way for officers to be harassed in their own homes.
But civil rights lawyers say it is an important reinforcement of free
expression under the Bill of Rights and could prevent disorderly behaviour
being used as a "flag of convenience" by the police.
Brooker, who represented himself in the court battles but received legal
help at the Supreme Court, was reluctant to say much on his victory
yesterday.
At his Rutherglen house, near Greymouth, he said the decision showed
individuals could still make a difference.
**** Brooker staged his protest outside Constable Fiona Croft's home on the
morning of March 18, 2003, after objecting to her executing a late-night
search warrant at his house. ****
He knocked on her door to make sure she was home, knowing she had been on
duty the previous night.
When told to "p... off", he went to the grass verge outside her house and
played a guitar and sang a song he had composed himself.
It had lyrics such as "You just don't know when to quit - no more 3am
visits, Fiona".
He held a placard that read: "Stop the Bogus Warrants."
Brooker was arrested and charged with loitering with intent to intimidate.
The charge was amended to disorderly behaviour by a judge.
Brooker was convicted in the Greymouth District Court and fined $300. The
High Court and the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.
But in the Supreme Court's majority decision, Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias
found the courts had applied the wrong standard for disorderly behaviour and
did not consider the key question of whether Brooker had disrupted public
order.
She said freedom of speech should be restricted for public order reasons
"only when there is a clear danger of disruption rising far above
annoyance".
In Brooker's case, she said, the protest did not last long, occurred in the
daytime, and the song was delivered in a "normal singing voice", without
alarming or threatening messages.
Police Association president Greg O'Connor said yesterday the decision was
ludicrous.
He said it would invite people to stand and yell outside officers' homes,
making them vulnerable, especially in small towns.
Police officers were now asking how Supreme Court judges would react if
similar protests happened outside their homes by people they had sentenced,
he said.
"Supreme Court judges, fortunately for them, tend to live behind nice big
walls in leafy suburbs, and police officers are encouraged to live in the
communities they police," O'Connor said.
"Supreme Court judges would be very quickly demanding action if people they
had sentenced started protesting outside their houses."
Brooker's wife, Sheryl, said the saga had been stressful on them and left
her husband feeling he was unemployable.
"It's been a challenge. There are costs that you end up paying when you
stand up to continued (police) harassment and the view that some people make
of us in the community," she said.
"The important thing was for us to try to do things lawfully and Al believed
it was his lawful right (to protest).
"When the proper channels fail you, what else can you do but protest?"
Wellington barrister and Council for Civil Liberties chairman Michael Bott
said the case was a turning point in the courts' appreciation of the Bill of
Rights.
Often people were arrested with no proof that public order was being
disturbed, but rather because it was causing an inconvenience to the police,
he said.
Council of Civil Liberties president Tony Ellis said it was a remarkable
triumph of justice that a self-represented person could go before the
highest court in the land and get a decision that he had been convicted
improperly.
bharmer
I'm with O'Connor. Tony Ellis has in my opinion, supported some really
weird viewpoints over the years, and this is one of them
grumpyoldhori
> I'm with O'Connor. Tony Ellis has in my opinion, supported some really
> weird viewpoints over the years, and this is one of them
Intimidate by singing,what sort of girls blouses have we got
in the cop force today.
Quick rule of thumb check,would the cops arrest someone singing
outside my property,no,same rules should apply to the cops
then.
--
grumpy
bharmer
The cop was on night shift, as the person well knew. The object of the
protest was to prevent the cop from sleeping. She was right to
complain and Dame Sian Elias has gone down in my estimation.
grumpyoldhori
> The cop was on night shift, as the person well knew. The object of the
> protest was to prevent the cop from sleeping. She was right to
> complain and Dame Sian Elias has gone down in my estimation.
I have had a cop complain to me about the noise of machinery
keeping him awake.
My solution,booked him into a motel for the time we were there.
Same as that cop,nothing to stop her moving to a place where
she could sleep.
Following your argument,I take it her neighbors could not
make any noise with lawnmowers etc ?.
Or are those laws kept to preserve the right of cops only,
getting a good days sleep.
--
grumpy
John B
"bharmer" <brian....@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:741o33li2peda4u87...@4ax.com...
Not in mine. But you have just dropped a bit more. Almost at the
very bottom now, you are.
Night shifts have nothing to do with it. The object of the
protest was in the words of his song.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Rich...@hotmail.com
Whereas John B has never been high in my estimation. From what little
we know it appears that the intention was to be disruptive towards
this police officer, and that he was successful. Legally, the ultimate
judgement is probably correct, but it unfortuante that it got that far
as it now seems to encourage such poor behaviour.
In this group harvey and John B are deliberately offensive at times,
but at least we have the option of ignoring them / him. The police
officer did not have that option.
It appears that the original charge from the police was changed by the
judge. It is possible that a lesser charge may have been successful.
bharmer
The incidental noises of normal life are a different kettle of fish to
the activity of someone who has gone there repeatedly with the express
purpose of making her life miserable.
John B
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ld4o33h36srvde7bj...@4ax.com...
That's because I'm not a commie Clark parasite lapdog like you.
And it's well known around here that you don't admire honesty.
> From what little
> we know it appears that the intention was to be disruptive
> towards
> this police officer, and that he was successful.
His idea was to 'protest' a wrongful charge by the Police.
He was successful. He was right and the Police were wrong. Just
like you... WRONG!
Damos
wrote:
> The incidental noises of normal life are a different kettle of fish to
> the activity of someone who has gone there repeatedly with the express
> purpose of making her life miserable.
But is sitting on the side of the road singing a song really "disorderly
behaviour?"
?What about freedom of speech?
OK in the middle of the night...ok if using a loud hailer...ok if the
words were violent or objectionable
(Otherwise I wish that the police arrest most of the buskers on the
street.)
D.
--
"It's a foreboding I have - maybe ill placed - of my children's generation
or my grandchildren's generation ... when clutching our horoscopes, our
critical faculties in steep decline, unable to distinguish between what
right and what feels good, we slide, almost without noticing, into
superstition and darkness."
Carl Sagan.
Warwick
I wonder if she has stopped executing search warrants at 3
am.
--
cheers
grumpyoldhori
> In this group harvey and John B are deliberately offensive at times,
> but at least we have the option of ignoring them / him. The police
> officer did not have that option.
>
That is the point,he was arrested because she was a Police officer,
would they arrest any other person for doing the same to a member
of the general public.
Should the laws be enforced the same for all,or,are some more
important in the eyes of the police.
In other words,the cops saying she is one of ours.
--
grumpy
peterwn
> On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:52:28 +1200, grumpyoldhori
>
Don't blame the Chief Justice, the judges are doing their best to
interpret the Bill of Rights Act according to its text and in the
light of its purpose, and as a backstop considering Parliament's
intention.
The key thing with BORA (section 6) is that any legislation affecting
human rights is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the
right. How far this is taken with 'strained' interpretations or those
with Parliament did not mean or contemplate forms much of the legal
debate on this. The view here is that 'disorderly behaviour' requires
more than strumming a guitar and singing outside a police officer's
window.
I would favour Justice Thomas's minority judgement where he balances
the protestor's rights with the constable's rights.
All Supreme Court judgements can be viewed at:
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments-supreme-07.html
This case is: Allistair Patrick Brooker v The Police of 4 May 2007
If you are really keen on interpretation of Bill of Rights then see:
Paul Rodney Hansen v The Queen of 20 Feb 2007
Rich...@hotmail.com
Which is why I had also said:
"Legally, the ultimate judgement is probably correct, but it
unfortunate that it got that far as it now seems to encourage such
poor behaviour."
and
"It appears that the original charge from the police was changed by
the judge. It is possible that a lesser charge may have been
successful."
Yes the law should be enforced in the same way for all. This was a
deliberate malicious act. If he had not broken the law he should not
have been arrested, but if he had broken the law then he should have
been charged with something else.
Not all offensive behaviour is unlawful, but that does not stop it
being offensive. I would hope that is someone stalked me and made a
nuisance of themselves in that way there would be something that could
be done about it.
Matty F
>
So why did the cop wake up Allistair Brooker at 3am in rthe morning
with a search warrant? I think that is relevant. Was he convicted of a
crime as a result of the search? Why did the policewoman decide to
search at 3am? I cannot find any details about any of that, in which
case I will assume that the policewoman was wrong and deserved what
she got. She's lucky she isn't sacked.
Peter Ashby
I agree that disorderly behaviour should not be charged against people
who have simply made life inconvenient for the police. Extend that idea
and people protesting anywhere can get arrested for it. You do NOT want
to go down the route the UK has gone down in this respect.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net
Peter Metcalfe
brian....@ihug.co.nz says...
> The cop was on night shift, as the person well knew. The object of the
> protest was to prevent the cop from sleeping. She was right to
> complain and Dame Sian Elias has gone down in my estimation.
My estimation of her was pretty low to begin with considering
that she got the job through her husband's coat-tails, screwed
up the depositions hearing of Constable A and then started
pontificating about parliamentary supremacy being an untested
theory and badmouthing our politicians to a British
parliamentary select committee!
In her defence, I should point out that she is not the only
judge on the Supreme Court and that two other judges agreed
with her. Thus the recent decision rises from barking mad
to merely stupid.
--Peter Metcalfe
kNOWER
"Yeah Right" <what...@whenever.wherever> wrote in message
news:rclp33l3l2frnjpv0...@4ax.com...
> On , , Sat, 5 May 2007 18:23:34 +1200, Re: Protest singer's court
> midnight or even later.
>
Bail checking burglars on curfews to make sure they are home and not out
burgling???
What unkind bastards!!!
Brian Dooley
<what...@whenever.wherever> wrote:
>On , , Sat, 05 May 2007 17:17:03 +1200, Re: Protest singer's
>court victory angers police, bharmer <brian....@ihug.co.nz>
>wrote:
>He claims she served warrants on him late at night while he was
>sleeping and wanted to know why she couldn't do it during the
>day?
Alan Martin, then owner of LV Martin of whiteware fame, had an
advert saying (roughly) if you have a complaint, just ask for me,
Alan Martin. Early (very) one morning some smart-arse rang up to
complain about a washing machine. Alan took the call and said he
would attend to it first thing - and he did. Very early the
following morning the smart-arse's phone rang; it was Alan Martin
to ask if the washing machine was going ok.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Brian Dooley
<metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>In article <741o33li2peda4u87...@4ax.com>,
>brian....@ihug.co.nz says...
>
>> The cop was on night shift, as the person well knew. The object of the
>> protest was to prevent the cop from sleeping. She was right to
>> complain and Dame Sian Elias has gone down in my estimation.
>
>My estimation of her was pretty low to begin with considering
>that she got the job through her husband's coat-tails, screwed
>up the depositions hearing of Constable A and then started
>pontificating about parliamentary supremacy being an untested
>theory
I thought it had been tested in January 1649.
>and badmouthing our politicians to a British
>parliamentary select committee!
>
>In her defence, I should point out that she is not the only
>judge on the Supreme Court and that two other judges agreed
>with her. Thus the recent decision rises from barking mad
>to merely stupid.
>
>--Peter Metcalfe
--