Andrew Geddis
The power to do something about protesters occupying
Dunedin's Octagon lies with the city council, not police, and
the council now has the ammunition it needs to act, an Otago
University law professor believes.
Concerns about the occupiers, who have recently been erecting
tents on a roped-off area of damaged grass in the Octagon,
were raised yesterday by city councillor Neil Collins who
called the protesters "layabout rabble" who were giving the
Octagon a bad look.
At a Dunedin City Council annual plan meeting, Cr Collins
said if Occupy protesters were being removed "by police" in
Auckland, he wondered when that would happen in Dunedin.
More than 4000 cruise ship visitors were in the city
yesterday.
"I just don't think it's a very good look."
He hoped the protesters could be moved as soon as possible.
Cr Collins later described the protesters as "layabout
rabble", who sat about or lay in a hammock in the middle of
the Octagon.
Tents had been erected on the grass in defiance of signs
directing people to stay off the grass, which the council was
re-growing after the recent occupation.
Council chief executive Paul Orders said he planned to speak
to police yesterday.
In the past, police had expressed concerns about the legality
of removing the protesters, but that appeared to have been
answered by events in the North Island, Mr Orders said.
Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said he believed
a recently issued injunction from the Auckland District Court
gave the Dunedin City Council the support in law to use its
bylaw prohibiting camping in reserves.
The Auckland Council successfully applied for the injunction,
which ordered the protesters to cease residing in Aotea
Square and also remove the various illegal structures in
which they had been living.
Remaining Occupy Auckland protesters were this week served
notices by the council's warranted officers requesting the
removal of illegal structures from public land and, when they
did not comply, council-employed security guards took the
tents down, using statutory powers granted under existing
bylaws.
Police were on hand in case things got out of order, and
several people were arrested.
An Auckland Council spokesman told media the council's legal
advice was that they were still able to confiscate gear
despite the court not upholding a trespass notice against
protesters.
He said the council's action was consistent with the
direction of the district court decision.
Prof Geddis said the Dunedin council could piggy-back off the
Auckland District Court decision and rely on it in court, as
it effectively upheld local bylaws in the face of the Bill of
Rights Act.
The Dunedin City Council could argue that in the Auckland
protest, it was OK to use that bylaw to put an end to the
protest.
In doing that, however, the council would have to weigh up
whether it wanted to hire security guards to do the job; the
fact the bylaw only gave the council the power to remove
structures, which could mean that the people could remain
with signs; that the forcible removal of tents could
encourage more protesters to come to the Octagon; and that
the protesters could fight the decision in court, where even
if the council won, the likelihood of recovering costs was
probably low.
Police would probably only get involved if efforts by
security guards to remove tents dissolved into disorder, as
it had in Auckland, he said.
"As far as the police are concerned, it's something they
don't need to deal with."
Inspector Greg Sparrow said police understood the community's
frustration in relation to the Occupy protest group. However,
there was a process the council needed to go through to
remove the protesters.
Police had had ongoing discussions with the council in
relation to the matter and talked to Mr Orders about it
yesterday, he said.
In relation to a wilful damage complaint to police from the
council about a tent erected on the Octagon grass on
Wednesday, police were looking into the criminal aspects of
the complaint, he said.
Dunedin City Council operations general manager Tony Avery
last night said the council was still considering the issues
at hand, including taking a closer look at the Auckland
District Court's decision, but had not made any decisions
about the protesters.
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.