Night in custody result of an error
Adam Currie, of climate advocacy group 350 Aotearoa, was held in custody overnight following his arrest for apparently breaching bail at a peaceful protest in central Dunedin, on Wednesday.
In April, Mr Currie and 10 others were charged with wilful trespass after about 70 protesters camped on the West Coast's Denniston Plateau for five days in opposition to mining company Bathurst Resources seeking fast-track approval to expand its operation.
He and five other protesters climbed into cable cars used to transport coal at Stockton Mine.
Mr Currie said it had been a "real shock" to be arrested on Wednesday and it was the first time he had been held by police overnight.
Climate activist Adam Currie (centre left) leaves the Dunedin District Court with supporters yesterday. Photo: Gerard O'Brien
He said when he appeared in Dunedin District Court on Thursday morning, a clerk confirmed there had been a typo when his bail conditions were set in April.
"It was meant to say 'you will not engage in unlawful protest', but then there was a typo by the registrar, and so it said 'you will not engage in lawful protest'."
The judge found "clearly that bail condition was unlawful", Mr Currie said.
"The Dunedin District Court judge confirmed that banning me from lawful protest was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
"But the judge said he would not take further action against the registrar who set this condition due to judicial immunity."
Mr Currie said he would much rather be talking about Bathurst Resources' fast-track application and the damage it posed to the climate, nature and human health than his arrest.
Mr Currie (far left) during Wednesday's protest outside ANZ's Dunedin central branch. Photo: Peter McIntosh
"It's about people versus Bathurst, not about us and the police."
"But, yes, absolutely, the police should not be arresting me for lawful protest, and absolutely, I do not enjoy being in a jail overnight."
Mr Currie said climate activists had been protesting for years and noticed an "increasing crackdown on public protest".
He said those arrested in April planned to contest the c charges "due to it being public land".
Following the protest on Wednesday, a police spokeswoman said a 25-year-old man was taken into custody for breaching bail and would appear in court on Thursday.
There were no other issues at the protest, she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
17 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Dunedin Ponzi scamster lacks insight into 'abhorrent' crimes
A Dunedin financial adviser, who put his $15.7 million Ponzi scheme down to "overconfidence", lacks insight into his crimes after more than five years behind bars, the Parole Board says. Barry Kloogh, 62, was jailed for eight years and 10 months when he came before the Dunedin District Court in 2020 and made his first application for parole yesterday. Despite his tears and the fraudster condemning his crimes as "abhorrent", board member Greg Coyle said the inmate lacked insight into what caused his 25-year scam. Kloogh, who wore the same grey jacket and white shirt in which he was sentenced, made no reference to the factors of greed and dishonesty, Dr Coyle noted. His next parole hearing will be in December and a psychological assessment was ordered to "dig deeper" into his motives. Vanya Thurston, who helped establish an investor support group, said the decline of parole was the correct result, but no cause for celebration among the victims. The losses would affect families for generations, she said. "A lot [of victims] didn't want to participate in this process because it was retraumatising. I truly believe it led to people's premature deaths; the stress of it has just been too much," Ms Thurston said. Dr Coyle began yesterday's hearing by summarising the views of Kloogh's victims. "Dreams have been shattered; you've stolen their future; lives have been wrecked ... their world has been turned upside down, based on narcissistic greed." It was "disgusting, manipulative behaviour", they said. Kloogh acknowledged the statements were true. "I think I was too overconfident ... I simply thought I would be able to pay this money back. "I obviously have this character flaw that suggests I can achieve anything and I know I can't now." At Kloogh's sentencing, the court heard he had embezzled $15.7m of investor funds, but yesterday he said he believed the total was $18m. He estimated he personally profited by up to $3m. "I think that was more about making myself and others around me feel good. I think that was a mechanism to make me feel I was better than everyone else and I simply wasn't," Kloogh said. He told the Parole Board his use of alcohol was a key factor in the offending. Kloogh said he would drink to stifle any negative emotions and instil a sense of confidence. "I had moments I thought: 'This isn't going to work'. I had alcohol again, there was bravado and away I would go," he said. "What alcohol did was remove any semblance of morality that I had to pull myself in." Panel member Paul Knox said many victims had spoken about Kloogh's dramatic performances, which had led to them investing with him. How could the board be confident the prisoner's tears were not a similar manipulative display? "I absolutely have heartfelt emotions about these people," Kloogh said. "I never want to go into the emotions of harming people ever again. I made a pact that I would not do this ever again, that I would not get involved in this stupid behaviour ever again, and I've held true to that pact." Dr Knox suggested that might be a little hasty, given Kloogh had been in prison for the past five years. The board discussed with him an "exclusion zone" — a prohibited geographical area to stop a parolee unwittingly running into his victims — common in such serious cases. Kloogh said he had not considered living anywhere outside Dunedin because it was where all his support remained. He believed keeping "a low profile" and dedicating himself to studies and household chores would keep him out of the public eye. Kloogh said he had no assets remaining, bar a $12,000 KiwiSaver account. It still makes him better off than one of his victims, who told the Parole Board they had just $10 in the bank at present.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Citizens arrest changes unlikely to improve safety: ministry
The government's proposed citizen's arrest changes are unlikely to have much impact on public safety, according to the justice ministry's analysis. It says there are also risks people would be more likely to use unreasonable force, particularly on children who - being physically smaller - are easier to catch and restrain. In February, the justice minister unveiled proposals for changing up the citizen's arrest regime, after a Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) led by Sunny Kaushal came up with the recommendations. The changes would remove an old limitation on making citizens arrests at certain hours of the day, and clarify other aspects of the law including that restraints and reasonable force could be used, and requiring people to call police and follow their instructions as soon as practicable. They are set to be combined with a raft of changes to Crimes Act announced this week, including instant fines for shoplifters, higher penalties for assaulting first responders, and making a "coward punch" a specific offence. The ministry's Regulatory Impact Statement showed the approach taken by the government was more conservative than what the MAG initially proposed, but more ambitious than what the ministry would have wanted. It found the changes likely to improve how people understood the law, but unlikely to materially improve public safety. "The changes are coherent, and somewhat minimise the scope for unintended consequences. In of themselves, these proposals are not expected to reduce offending levels but will provide more clarity around how intervention can occur, what should be done following an arrest, and remove confusion as to what degree of force can be used to defend one's property," it said. It found clarifying the rules - that people making citizen's arrests can use restraints and should contact police as soon as practicable - was likely to "codify (but not change) the status quo". However, people could also be encouraged by the changes to use force and restraints to make such arrests, which "may lead to unreasonable use of force and unlawful detention". The ministry said this could be seen as inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, and the use of restraints "is inconsistent with laws regulating the use of force on children and young people". "Agencies believe that specifying the use of restraints (although already allowed under the law) may lead to unreasonable use of restraints, which is especially concerning in relation to alleged youth offenders (who may be more likely to be arrested given they are typically physically easier to restrain that alleged adult offenders). "Further, Māori are more likely to be disproportionately impacted by these changes (if more arrests occur)." Removing restrictions on hitting or doing bodily harm when making an arrest would also mean less confusion about the law and make it more workable and consistent - but again, with no material change to public safety. "No impact on public safety expected as the proposal does not allow for more than reasonable force and there is a minimal risk that retailers or the public will interpret this as allowing excessive force in applicable defence of property scenarios." A cost-benefit analysis suggested the changes would make retailers and security guards' rights and obligations clearer, but this could also come with "minimal" one-off costs and the changes would overall have a "low" level of impact. It also said police had raised concern about several aspects of the changes: a. the inconsistent use of arrest powers and the relative lack of training retailers are likely to have in relation to arrests; b. the risk that more than reasonable force is used - and that prosecutions follow, undermining the policy objectives; c. the vulnerability of children and young people and how they may be detained; d. offenders targeting places with less security (e.g., lone retail operators) or an escalation of violence (that would otherwise not occur) aimed at deterring arrests by retailers; e. that citizens will perform arrests where Police would not, due to evidentiary or public interest thresholds for arrest and charging a suspect not being met - undermining confidence in the criminal justice system; and f. that situations of low-level theft escalate into more serious violent situations. The document said limited time, a narrow scope, few options to consider and a lack of broader consultation all limited the depth of the analysis, and said it would be difficult to assess how effective it was. "This data may be difficult to gather, even with an excess of time, as police are unlikely to record the occurrence of 'citizens' arrests', for example." While police would continue monitoring things like rates of shoplifting, "it will not be possible to determine whether any changes in offending rates are attributed to the changes proposed here, due to the many factors that give rise to offending behaviours". The government is also looking at making sentences for a "coward punch" - a single-strike surprise attack on the head or neck - more strict. An Auckland law professor has previously warned it would be easy for people making citizen's arrests to stray into using unreasonable force - including, for example, a deadly punch.
Newsroom
4 days ago
- Newsroom
The bill that's left people dazed, confused
The Regulatory Standards Bill is in its fourth iteration. There have been three previous attempts – and three failures – in getting a bill that aims to improve law making over the line. But this time, the Act Party's baby is part of the coalition agreement, and David Seymour can see the finishing tape. The bill has passed its first reading and will shortly hear submissions, but everything about its path has been controversial, including the short timeframe to hear those submissions. The Detail talks to Newsroom political editor Laura Walters about what the bill aims to do, and why so many people hate it. Critics include former Attorney-General and Labour Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who is an expert in writing laws, and who has reviewed a previous iteration of the bill when he was President of the Law Commission. He calls it 'one of the oddest bills I've ever seen'. When asked what the new law will actually do, Walters says 'We don't know'. 'I just don't know what the impact is going to be. I'm kind of constantly like … storm in a teacup? Or constitutional nightmare? It's kind of somewhere in the middle.' Some commentators, including another former Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, have said the bill is unnecessary. Others say it won't have a big impact because, like the Bill of Rights, it can be ignored by Parliament when forming legislation. Seymour's own regulation ministry and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee have advised it's not needed. 'Despite what people say, it is constitutionally important, this piece of legislation. People care deeply about this … this is going to impact our future and current laws,' says Walters. 'It is hard to unpick, it is hard to interpret. But it's worth having the debate over.' Some of the sideshows around the bill have distracted from what it's about. They include a spat between Seymour and one of the country's top academics, Dame Anne Salmond; Seymour's social media attacks on those who disagree with it; some 'unparliamentary language' during Seymour's monologue at the Finance and Expenditure Committee; uproar over the mere 30 hours allocated to hearing submissions; and Seymour making comments that he later had to walk back about most of the submissions coming from bots. Walters prefers to refer to this bill as the 'good law-making bill', which is what Seymour has billed it as. 'It would essentially set up some foundational principles for what constitutes good law making,' she says. 'All past and all future laws would essentially be tested against these principles. So we kind of refer to them as a set of core principles. They are quite complex but the shortened version of these principles are the rule of law; liberties; taking of property; taxes, fees and levies; the role of courts, and good law making. 'The idea, David Seymour says, is to ensure that all future laws are better, that legislation is of a good quality that will ensure that poor laws aren't made, that we don't have issues with redundant or excessive legislation and regulation.' But 'when we're talking about the principles of good law making … it's really hard, because those principles are so contested. The idea is that this law should make for better law making, but everyone has to agree that this law is the right mechanism for it and has those principles right in the first place. And it seems New Zealand just cannot agree on that.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
