OPINION:

With Barry Manilow blasting, portaloos bursting, and Parliament’s grounds in complete disarray, it’s easy to think the anti-mandate protest is nothing more than one giant party with no end in sight.

With every party – or in this case an occupation on Parliament grounds – there’s a plethora of legal issues.

From a mandate perspective, party-goers have been breaching restrictions insofar as the gathering has included more than 25 people, mask wearing has been non-existent, and the sheer number of huggers I’ve seen suggests they’ve no concern for social distancing.

Breaching Covid-19 orders – in this case the Covid-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Order 2021 – could result in a fine of up to $12,000 or six months in prison. And yet, we haven’t seen any charges relating to Covid-19 restriction breaches.

We know police arrested 122 people in relation to the protests. Protesters face charges of trespass and obstruction. Under the Trespass Act 1980, protesters could land a fine of up to $1000 or go to prison for up to three months.

Criminal trespass doesn’t apply to Parliament grounds, but section 26 of the Parliamentary Services Act 2000 grants the Speaker all powers of an occupier under the Trespass Act.

Under the Summary Offences Act 1981 it’s a criminal offence to obstruct a police officer or encourage another person to obstruct or resist a police officer. For this, you can be jailed for up to three months, or fined up to $2000.

According to police, some factions were actively promoting false advice about people’s rights and police powers, “which is misleading and factually incorrect”.

For example, the use of a particular word or phrase by an individual will not impact the arrest of anyone involved in unlawful activity, a statement read.

Under the Policing Act 2008, anyone arrested and taken into police custody is required to provide their name, age, date of birth and address. They must also let police take their photograph and fingerprints. It is an offence not to comply with these requests.

While reporting on the ground for Al Jazeera, I noticed a lot of dubious smells.Notwithstanding the obvious plumbing issues, dope was rife. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, possession of marijuana could see people serving three months in prison or being slammed with a $500 fine.

Alcohol was also a feature, and according to the Wellington Consolidated Bylaw 2008 drinking and/or possession of alcohol is prohibited at all times in any public place within the Wellington city control area. The penalty for breaching an alcohol ban is an infringement fee of $250. According to police, two people among the 122 were arrested for alcohol-related behaviour.

On the issue of the Wellington City Council, after an influx of complaints by residents, it’s teamed up with police to address the wide-ranging operational issues that have emerged.

According to council spokesperson Richard MacLean, the council had issued about 500 parking tickets to the value of $25,000: $40 tickets for parking on footpaths, and $60 tickets for parking on broken yellow lines and/or inconsiderate parking. It hadn’t issued any fines for graffiti or other offences, he said.

For any food trucks on site, the council was checking whether they were licensed to sell food. Licences could only be removed through a statutory process, and initial assessments found there were no breaches of the Food Act. The porta-loos were not supplied by the council.

The disposal of rubbish and waste is the responsibility of the landowner. As Parliament grounds is Crown land, it’s the responsibility of the Department of Internal Affairs to organise and dispose of rubbish. Rubbish left in litter bins and on the street is a job for the council as it’s council land.

In theory, Trevor Mallard could have been in breach of Wellington Council regulations for putting the sprinklers on overnight – much to the dismay of protesters. However, Parliament is exempt from water restrictions. Parliament is on corporate water supply and is not subject to the same restrictions as residents.

On the issue of Mallard, it’s the Speaker’s role to set the scene for protesting. In 1999, speaker Richard Harrison said: “It is an important aspect of our democratic society that people should be able to assemble peaceably in order to express their opinions on a subject. Perhaps the most favoured venue for demonstrations of a political nature is Parliament grounds.”

Generally if a group is planning a protest or demonstration on Parliament grounds, they’re to contact the Speaker’s Office. Details include contact details, anticipated number of participants, reasoning, and a date, start, and finish time.

Protesters are expected to assemble in an orderly manner “using the pedestrian ways so as to avoid damage to the lawns and flower beds and so as not to interfere with the flow of vehicular traffic”, NZ Parliamentary Debates says.

Protesters aren’t to interfere with the use of Parliament buildings and, while sound amplification equipment may be used, it mustn’t be disruptive and only used for speeches. Protests are only to take place during daylight hours and participants aren’t to breach the peace.

While Parliament land isn’t covered under thecouncil’s Freedom Camping Bylaws, Speaker rules state that no structures – such as tents – are to be erected. If they’re not removed when requested, they’re liable for confiscation.

Considering it’s been a fortnight and protesters haven’t been working per se, it strikes me as bananas that there haven’t been more fines or legal consequences. Sky Stadium even provided a free parking facility for the 100-odd cars blocking the area! Instead, it’s been one hell of an expensive exercise where poor old taxpayers are likely to be slammed with the bill.

Source: Read Full Article