VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON

LIBRARY
r ' ..
.J 1 •

33, 1)74

A fine of 1Oc per day is

charged on overdue books

••c Y., G. G.
. e
J.
L.1..1..r-i ' UL "l .JS r.b Ly .

Due Borrower's Nome

~ 1 .::,

:J.:6{?]f /1 ))cA--'.'! J'o-

 1, ......

LEGAL WRITING C.C. McKAY

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY

The maintenance of public order is a function of the

State and this function is carried out by the Police as an

arm of the Executive which operates within limits largely

prescribed by the legislature in statutes. Such a statute

is the Crimes Act and specifically the provision creating

·-·
the offence of "unlawful assembly" in that part of the Act

denoted as "Crimes against Public Order". A clear statement

as to the justification for the existance of this offence is

seen in Goodall v Te Kooti (1):

"! think the propos i tion •of the respondent that

any number of men may assemble to do any act

that is not unlawful, irrespective of the

consequences, is pushing the d octrine of

individualism and of the obligation of individuals

•
to the body politic to an irrational extent. A
leading duty if not 'the' leading duty of a

Government i s to preserve the public peace and

everyone has to sacrifice part of his individual

rights and liberty for that object."

The offonce as it exists today appears in s.86 of

the Crimes Act 1961 as amended by s.3 of the Crimes Amendment
Act 1973 i.e.:

3. UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY - s.86 of the Principal

Act is hereby amended by repealing subsection (1)

and substituting the following section:

"(1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three

or more persons who, with intent to carry out any

/I ,. . ·: University of
· veUington
...aw Library
 e
I I

•
 2.

common purpose, assemble in such a manner, or so

conduct themselves when assembled, as to 'cause'

persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to

fear, on reasonable grounds, that the persons so

assembled -

I ( a) Will use violence against persons or

property in that neighbourhood or else-

where; or
( b) Will, by that assembly, needlessly and

without reasonable cause provoke other

•
persons to use violence against persons

or property in that neighbourhood:

Provided that no one shall be deemed to

provoke other persons needlessly and without

reasonable cause by (doing or saying any-

thing that he is lawfully entitled to do

or say.) 1

(2) Persons lawfully assembled may become an

unlawful assembly if, with a common purpose, they

• conduct themselves in such a manner that their

assembling would have been unlawful if they had

assembled in that manner for that purpose.

(3) An assembly of three or more persons for

the purpose of protecting the house of any one of

their number against persons threatening to break

and enter that house in order to commit a crime

therein is not unlawful.

( 4) Every member of an unlawful assembly is

liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one

year."
 3.

Unlawful assembly as enshrined in the Crimes Act,

has not yet attracted comprehensive discussion by academic

lawyers, and the purpose of this dissetation is to identify

the essential elements of the offence as it exists at the

present time.

However, while pursuing that theme the major con-

sid eration in this paper will be an analysis of the 1973

amendment brought into existence by the "new" Labour Government

with the then Minister of Justice, Dr. Martin Finlay, as

midwife. This study will purport to show that the above

amendment brought "no substantial change" in the law of

• unlawful assembly and that the motivation behind the amendment

was simply political expediency.

Section three of the ~rimes Amendment Act 1973

amended s.86 of the Crimes Act 1961 by repealing subsection

one and substituting the above subsection. From 1961 until

1973 the offence of unlawful assembly appeared in this form in

s.86 (1):

"86. Unlawful assembly - (1) An unlawful assembly

•
is an assembly of three or more persons who, with

intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble

in such a manner, or so conduct themselves when

assembled, as to cause persons in the neighbourhood

of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that

the persons so assembled -

(a) Will disturb the peace tumultuously; or

(b) Will, by that assembly, needlessly and

without reasonable cause provoke other

persons to disturb the peace tumultuously."

My hypothesis that the new section was incorporated in

the Crimes Act for reasons only of political expediency gains

credibility in view of the circumstances, both socially and

 4.

politically which existed in 1973. Firstly social circumstances

at that time were such that many people in N.Z. thought positive
action was needed to control groups (gangs) of motor cyclists
(or "bikies" which is the popular descriptive term). Such
gangs, sometimes comprising up to one hundred or more persons

were often seen meeting in the large cities with consequent

near hysteria by the people living in those cities. People
feared for themselves and their property. Captions such as
"Knives, Chains and Bars in Gang Fight" (2), appeared often
in the newspapers. Also at this particular time there was
felt a need by some sectors of the community to place more power
in the hands of the police to enable them to more effectively
deal with the "bikie" phenomenon. The activities of dissenting
groups such as H.A.R.T. reinforced this belief. Secondly, and
not surprisingly "Law and Order" became a major election issue.

In the Labour Party 1972 Election Manifesto under the heading

of "Justice, Law and Order" it was unequivl>cally promised:

"The first duty of a Government is to ensure the

safety and protection of the community. Effective
steps will be taken aimed at stamping out lawless-

•
ness." (3)

Clearly a course of positive action was envisaged and

under pressure from Parliamentary Opponition members Dr. Finlay

promised that:

"All this will be done." (4)

Accordingly, the purpose of this legislation was to

give the Police extended powers to meet a felt general need.

But it also purportedly lad a more precise purpose described

by the Minister of Justice in the following words:

"At the moment there is no appropriate reference

to the fear of injury or damage to property the

real danger in'bikies' behaviour. such an amend-

 rnent as that proposed will enable Police to step
in while trouble was still brewing and before it

boiled over - to interc ept a gang on the way to

its chosen battlefield or while , as so often

happens, its members are fortifying themselves

with Dutch courage." (5)

However, as later paragraphs will show, the enactment

was merely window dressing. Perplexed by the near impossibility

of extending the already extensive powers possessed by the

•
Police at the time, political necessity forced the Govern-

ment to pass the 1973 amendment •

Q, Historical Development of the Offence of "Unlawful Assembly"

The elements of "unlawful assembly" as it exists

today have resulted largely from an evolutionary process

of the common law. These elements will be seen later, and

an investie ation of this 11

c1.n._, ie11t offence" with its consequent

•
development and lastly its codification is necessary for a

better understanding of what exactly "unlawful assembly" is •

In the edition of Lambard 1 s "Eirenarcha" of 1591

there occurs the title y"Of other breaches of peace, with a

multitude; as by Riot, rwu te or other Unlawful Assernblie",

the text states that apart from statutes "conventicles against

the peace" were punishable in the same way as other trespasses

i.e. as misdemeanours.(6) The genus seems to be "conventicles

that bring manifest terror unto the subject" or as Stephens

says (7) "these offences i.e. rout, unlawful assembly and riot

all have the common thread that they are a danger to the

presence of the tranquillity of the state". Thus "unlawful

assembly" wa s recognised in the 16th Century as an offence in

 6.

that area of the lawrelating to public order. AlBo in the

earliest recorded definitions of vhat constituted unlawful

absembly, appear L further the nee essi ty for it to be "the

company of three or more persons disorderly coming together;

forcibly to commit an unlawful act". (8) These elements all

remain in the law as it is codified today.

Another early writer of the 17th Century relies on

Lambard in :orming his definition and states that such an

assembly is only unlawful if it be in terror or affri ht of

the people (i.e. "in terrorem populi 11 ) . This definition that

•
it must be an assembly which causes "fear" to people, not in

the actual assembly, 1as developed further by Hawkins ( 9) ..

Archbold (10) and Russell (11) seized upon that cefinition

which is very similar to that of s.86 of the Crimes Act 1961.

This definition was of an assembly cf three or more persons

who :

( a) For purposes forbid, en by "la¥·"; or

( b) 1ith intent to carry out any common purpose

lawful or unlawful , assemble in such a manner as

•
to endanger the public peace , or give fir~ and

courageous ~ersons in the neighbourhood of such

assembly reasonable u·ounds to apprehend a

breach of the peace in consequence of it. (12)

In this definition (a) is oren to criticism . It

extends to any assembly to further an unlawful pu rp ose ana lacks

the element of c~usin 6 apprehension of a disturb~nc e of the

peace "tumultuously". Therefore, on this aspect the Ent,lish

common law definition i~ wider than that vhich is at present
in the statute books in 1 .z., for in .i . Z. it is only an

"unlawful assembly" when it is fea.L·ed by reasonable people

Lmt the ac;ser.itly 11ill use vr cause others to use violence

~bainst persons or property. It is submitted that it is

 7.

only (b) of that definition which pertains to unlawful assembly

in .L~ • Z. today, because the essence of the offence is tne

disturbance or possibility uf the disturuance of tne public

peace .

In the early 19th Century decisions , in the U. ~.,

tney were usually founded on the basis that the assembly was

unlawful because of sedition (13) or some purpose forbidden

by law (e.g. a prize fight in which one spectator is 0 uilty of

aiding and abettinb the two combatants in their assault upon

one ~nether (14». ~n modern law the concepts of s edition

•
and unla,. 1ul cornbi 1ation which appear abov0 are less common

and an agreement by three or more to comrr:it an indicia. blt•

fraud for example is must li~ely to be found to ue a conspiracy

(15), this is because ~any of tnese offences lack the basic

inc redient of "in terrorem populi" , essential now to come

under ~he offence of unlawful assembly. Propositions about

prize fi 6 hts are autonomous in relation to unla,ful assembly

an~ even in the 19th Century the d eciai ons distin 0 uish between

.spar rin 5 t1atches and t~.e extreme violence inherent in a pri ze

fight, regarded as ct breach of the peace, on a 'res ipsa

•
loquitur" basis •

As su e:;ge sted above , from 1830 on ~&rd the Courts v1ert

laying increasing .emphasis en tne requirem ent of an

''apprehension" of a "br&acn of the peace" (16). In 183'3 in

g v. Vincent apart from counts involving sedition, there was a

count for unla~ful assembly causing terror to subjects (on

nhich the accused was found guilty ). In this case tne

accused and several ot.Lers met late at night in an old nouse

to plan a vcaching miauion . \fuen the ~olice arre~ted them

tuey ha~ blackened faces and there ~ere arms in the house .

,ldersen .E• in that case said :

"If a meeting from ita general appearance a,d

from all tne accompanJinc ci~cu~stances is

 8.

calculated to exGite terror, alarm and constern-

ation, it is in general criminal and tnerefore

unlawful." (17)

( 18)
Also in E v Graham and :urns/Charles J . placed great

c:rnphasis in his direcLion to the jury on the "dangerous dis-

tur1ance of the public peace" which may make an a1::,semblage of

p~rsons unla ful even if its object is a lawful one . In t .is

case a group of people wer~ ~clkinL a pu lie protest about tha

imprisonment 01 the Iri~h leaGer O'Brien. before the meeting

took place a !V:at,istratE: had orJered a proclc,.ma.tion sayin 6

•
that proces.:,ion.s or rneetin,}, in ""'rafal 6 ar Square were not

_t'ermitted tocause :1e had r·easonable 5 rounds of fearing that

if any mor~ meetings of the d~fendent~ urganisation (called

the "Eetr opoli Lan Radical Fede1 a tion") ,,ere convened pu blically ,

violence and disorde ffiibht result. Such a 'Y.eetinb ;.hich took

place ,as found to l ie a 1 unlawful a..;;sen.bly.

In 1879 in En0 land the "English Criminal Code

Commi""sion" was ""et up tu inveutisate the co.nmon law a::, it

tn ..,n .:as au,-l oug~es1-ed what par tG oubht to be codified. The

Commission made a thorough investigation of unlawful assembly

and found:

"The law •1as first adopted at a time ,he11 it was

the practice of the gentry who were on bad terms

with each other to 5 o to the market at the head

of bands of armed retainers. It was obvious that

no civilised government could permit this practice ,

the consequence of which ~as at the time that the

assembled bands would probably fight and certainly

make peacable people fear that they v:ould fight.

It was ¼hilst the state of society was sucl as to

render this a prevailin~ mischief that the earlier

cases were decided; and consequently the duty of

 9.

not provoking a breach of the peace has sometimes

been so str ont:,1y laid do rn as almost to make it seem

as if it •1ere unlawful to take means to resist those

who came to commit crimes." (19)

This statement not only shows the recognition of the element

of an "apprehension" of a distur'ba.nce of the peace as a

necessary part of unlawful assembly but it was not at that

time aeclared specifically in any decided c~se that an assembly

may be unlavful lf it causes persons in the neighbour ood to

fear that it will needlessly and without reasonable cause

•
provoke othe · perso_1s to use violence a. 0 ainst persons or p1 operty
in that neibhbourhood •

..e nave nov,, seen wh<.J.t consituted the common law

offence of unlawful assembly and how it developed . An early,

but nonetneles,s, very important case v.as Beatty v "illb.:mkB , (20)

uecided in 1882. In thh; case member.:. cf the "Salvation Army 11

marched throu 0 h thE:: streets of Jeston-Super-Vare knowing that

they wuuld meet !orcible opposition frw1 an opposing group

called thG "Skeleton Army". Clashes :1ad occur ed. before and it

is apparent .Zro; .. the fact.:; tnat the Salvation Army beha.ved

quite literally in a ~artial manner Qnd were re&dy to use

necessary force. It was found by t1e Divisional Court that

che e 1a0 nothinb in the ~alvation Army's conduct when a0sembled
tobether ~hicL ,,a0 eitner tumultuou~ or a~ainst the peace. The
Court on appeal 1elci tiw.t t 1e Salvationi.sts, \,hose acts .ere

thus lawful, could not Le punished merely because others might

react unla~fully .

The first reported case vn this offt-nce in .I • Z .

concerned the 1:aori C ief, Te Kooti, in the famou..., case 3oodall

v Te Kooti in 1590 and as sucn warrantci a discussion. Te Kooti

had decided to make a trip to tr18 Gisborne district ( to visit

relatives) frum further up north. ,Jhen he arrived at Cpotiki

 10
.

h
i.sfo
llow
ersnumb
ered som
e twohund
red and f
ifty
,11h
ich h
ad
g
rown toove
rsixhund
redrou
rday
sla
ter
. ~Te thenp
roc
eeded
tow
ard
s~i
sbo
rneinthem
ann
er o
ftroop
sinr
e6u
laro
rde
r.
Th
isw
ab tothecon
ste
rna
tiono
fpeop
leinG
isbo
rne wh
ere

tw
entyy
earG p
rev
iou
she ad c
aJ
.ri
e dou
ta v
iciou
sma
ssa
cre
.
A
rms i
ereno
tdi
spl
a y
e dbu
tthe
rev
asJ ide
spr
eadrumou
rtha
t
th~yw
ereconc
eal
e d
. P
e op
leo
fTau
ran0anu
ife
aredr
e~oo
ti
's
app
roa
c han~ m
any a
ett
ler
s11 h
isp
athl
eftthe
irhom
est
ead
s.

le .
T 3up
rem
eCou
rth
eld t11
attheL
a g
ist
rat
e's o
rde
r th
a.tT
e

Koo
ti f
indsu
ret
iesfo
rthep
eac
efo
rsixmon
th, w
s asb
ad.

How
eve
r, on appe
altotheCou
rto
f App
eal
, tha
tCou
rtuphe
ld
theo
rde
r,f
ind
ingtha
tTeKoo
tih
ad b
een a p
art
icipan
tinan
un
law
fula
ssemb
ly. Th
eCou
rto
fApp
eal found
,tha
tasa
m
att
er o
ffa
ct,the
rew
asr
easontof
earno
ton
lytha
tTe

Koo
ti and h
isfo
llow
ersm
igh
t d
istu
rbthep
eac
e,bu
tal
so
tha
t,wha
teve
r theym
igh
t do the
irconduc
twa
slike
lyinthe
ex
trem
etop
rovok
eothe
rstodo so
. Th
efa
cttha
ttho
se
o
the
rs wou
ld h
aveb
een a
ctinbi
llega
llyd
idno
tma
tte
r. (21
)

I
t~a
sal
socon
side
redby theCou
rt, imm
ate
ria
ltha
tTe Koo
ti
and h
isfo
llow
ers.
a dther
i6h
ttogo tou
isbo
rnei
fthey
w
ished
. (22
)

(The
setwoc
ase
sar
edi
stingu
iLhab
le and w
il
lbe
d
i0cu
ssedl
ate
rinth
is~
rit
ing
.)

F
rom thed
iscuas
ionsofarwe can seet h
ata l
lt he
a.
ss&mLly
e
ssen
tia
lelemen
tsof wha
ti sun
la:
ifu
l;tod ay,
.er
ee st
a b
liched

b
y tu
eye
ar 1890
. rom 1
F 893 tothe~
res
e n
tday theo
ffenc
e
i
sse
e nintues
tatu
tebook
. v
ect
ion8
6oftheC
rim
esA
ct
19G1 ,
a&in
troduc
e d ~~ s
tatu
toryo
ffenc
ein18S3 and wa
s

~
ased upon th~repo
rto
ftheEng
li~L C
rim
in"
l Co
Je Comm
i0s
ion
f1
o 879
. 110 doub
t\'
,n1
:
;n the1893 C
riu1
ina
l Cod
eBi
ll ,m
sbe
for
e
F
arl
iam
e n
t, mem1 e
r.s1
.er
e..
.,
ti
llcon
sciou
sofeven
tsin1089
, when
T
eKoo
ti\
,a
._
, a
.king h
isf
amou
str
t-kto1
,ard
s i
sbu
rne
. Inthe
 11•

Cr~minal Code Act 1893 the provisions relati1~ to unlawful

aosembly appeared in sections e) and 85 . Section 101 uf the
Crimes et 190C consolidated t11ese two aections into one witnout
a.nJ change of \10rding . As this section then appeared i u seen
belo1, :

S . 101 Unlawful Ascembly

( 1) An t.nla •. ful assembly is an assemoly of three

or m re, persons .. he witH intent to carry uut

anJ co mon purpose , a~semLle in such a manner

or· .c.O conduct themselves .. he as.::;embled , as

tu cau.:;;e _r>ersons in the n e i 6 hbou hood of such

ausembly to :ear on reasonable brounds , that

the perbons so assembled .. ill disturt the

peace tumultuously , ur ;ill by tiUch assem ly ,

n e edleosly a 1,d without 1 easonable occazion

provoke other persons ~o ctictu~b t e pe~ce

tumul tuou 0ly .

(2) Pe son.;:, la.fully a~se~ulcd may Lecoue an

unla, ful ~soemLlJ ii they ¼itL a co~~ on

purp ose couduct themsblves in such a .~nner

tnat neir assembling ,oul have teen unla.ful

if tncy had a~semoled in that manner for that

purpose.

(3) An assembly of throe or ~ore persoLs for the

purpose uf protectin~ thd house of any one of

tncir number aeainst person"' threatenin~ to

rE;ak an 1
ente such house in o... der to

coCTmit an indicative 0ffcnct therein is not

unlawful .

( 4) Every member of an unlawful assembly is

lia ble t;o 01.e year I s impr i uorn:ien t .

 12.

~ection 101 of the Crim es Act 1908 was reinacted in

s.86 of th1::: Crimes Act of 19£1 .. ithout any material alteration.

Compa1ing s.101 :ith s .8 6 it is clear t.nat "the only difference
worth mentioning is verbal". ( 23) In s. 101 ( 1) of tne 1908
Act the words "without reasonable occasion" have been substituted

in s.8G of tl1e 1961 Act witl II

nthout 1·easonable cause". Further-
more the words "indictable of .i.'ence" in the 1908 Act have been

substituted ,ith "Crime" in the 19£1 Act . The conclusion which

is dra¼n from this, is that the le 6 al effect 0f sections 8) and

85 of the Criminal Coae Act 1893, and of s.101 of the Crimes

Act 1908 is the same as that of s.86 in the Cr imes Act 1961.

C. The Offence Prior to the 197,5 Amendment

It is necesba y to briefly examine th offe ce of

unlawful absembly as it exivted before 1975. Tne ofience ,a~
set down i mmediately prior to amendment in 1973 in s.86 of the

Crimes 11.ct 1961.

Firstly, 1e rr.1.lSt have.:; regard to the "ext~rnal

circumstances" of the oftence i.e. the " actus reus". The

• lliere asciewLly - the coming of beiDg tobethe - ~~th the neces~ary

intc.:;nt cunstitute3 the offence ~nd th~ parties are then guilty

oi en~ offence punishable by up to one 1ear' imprisonment.

nrownlie bBY"=> ( 24) 'One ruaJ say that t 1e I

ac tus reus I requires
~n a~semtling of three or ruore in such a m~nner a~ to give

pe ..:son.s of ordinary firi,iness reasonable g oundb to fear a

ureach of tne peace."

In s.86 tnr~e or ~ore persuns ,ust be present to

constitute tDc requi~ite ~sae~Lly. T.ne na~ure of this

a.:;, emuly ..,ust Le such aG to ''cau e persons in the • eibh bourhood

tu fear on reasonable gruunds" . Not only must there be fear

on the part of thes~ persons, ~auved by the assembly in that

nei 0 nuourhoou u t it iust c.1.lvo l:e upon "reasonable grounds 11 •

 lj.

Anot:i1er part uf th - "actus reus" is that the fear mu.st

be tnat the assem~ly ~ill either -

( a) "aisturb the peace tuwultuuusly" tnemselves

or ( b) will provokt others to cio so "needlessly and
witnout reasonable cause 11 •

Secondly, the nGCtion contained a n,nens rea" element.

I'here must be an "intent" pre.,,ent, to carry out a common

pUlpOst:.

'.i.'hes e are the elements 1hich work to make up a

conviction fo tile offenc e of unla.ful assem~l· under s.8G of

tue 1961 Crimes Act. It could aloo be more clearly demonstrated
by a diagram.

~-- --
Unhndul Assemtl.,y

Actu.., ~eu:::, r-:ens Rea

It ~
3. Qr ..Qr~ D.e1:.sQ.1~ 12.r~s,gn,i .Qo...:im..Qn_Pl,irll,o~e

J
l
Qa.Y,o~ ~e.Qple l.n..t.e.nti.on.

1/

In n:i 0 hLourhood To so disturb

the peace
To fear
or By actions abets
Cn rea~onable brounds such ~n intention
anJ therefore has
ouch an intention
,.,i ther
""'-;,--
or
../
Tha tney will That they will cause
disturb the others "needlessly
peace turnul tuously and without reasonable
cause" to di.:;tur b the
peace tumultuously

Individual

I,
Offence committed
 14 .

0 , The Offence and the 1973 Rm endrnent Examined

In this part of the dissJtation I shall analyse what

the law at present is relating to "unlav,ful assembly" . Further-
more the question of what elem en t s of the law wer e in fact

changed by th e 1973 amendment s hall be di scussed .

A glimpse at the factual situationu where the offence

of "u nl awful ausembly" haa been 1 ecently applied ( both under

s . 86 ana unde · s . 3 of th0 Crimes men dment Act 1973 ) will show
something of its practical nature.

L• v Ai tken ( 1974 ) (2 5) wao a case decided under s . 86

(1)(a ) . The facto as fuund by the Court ~ere as follo\s .
hotorcyclisL f rom all ove1 i. . z., numbering c.tbout eignty ,

conve~ged on a house on 29th December , 1975 , at 71 Ker rs ~ oad,

Chri1;:;tchur...,h . :Uur ing the day there wao much .. ovemcn t to c:...nd
rrom the prtmises y thes u people . r:uch alcohol .1a3 consu,ned
durin 6 ti1e day . In the late afterno on th €r - was oOwe fi 0 nti.g
on th8 1ront lawn . A bottle Wau thrown t a peroOll un th~
la·,.n \' hicl... lar,ded on tlle r oadcide cons;jquently Lre~ing .

~eople liviug in ~errs Road gave evi ence tnat th i s gatnering

caused them to fe~r for themselvesand tn~ir family's safety .

~rratic iiLnt~ continued on the front la,~ betw~en about 30

=otorcycli s t s. ~t 7 . 00 p.m. the police uer 6 bant o1se ing
tne prcmises forme d tl e opinion thd. t an unla\,ful a..,sembly :1ad
been constituted . rlt 10.00 p . m. the police surrounded the

place , and witn Lh~ aid of teQr~ac ar1ested all the occu pc.t.ts .

--'-ach of the"'e &i 0 hty u. reuted were, convicted in the I agist1·ate 1 s

~ourt on the 14th February , 1974 , pan a char 6 e worded as
follo o :

"Tl at he \,as a me1. ter ot tJ.n unla, 1ul assamuly ,,ho

condu cteo themvelve& wh&n acSeillbled au to caus~

persons in the nei ghbourhood of Ker~~ r oad to

fear on reasonable urounds thut tne persons uO

 ausembled .,ould distu b the peace tumul tuou..,ly . "

Cn appeal to the ~. c. ~ac arthur J . eld the accubed

haJ not COMmitted thL offence , aa thb prosecution had not

proven satiafacto~ily th~t those arrested ~ere on the premises

at the relevant ti..,e i. e . two houro before arrest . E. v .Spring
(1974) ( 26) i 5 a recent~ . ~ . decision of Roper J . de cided under
tue new section . The facts 01 this case are interestin 6 in
t1at t ey ~ho~ how , as in the above case , cl ~otentially

violent situation can be effectively prevented by the use of

this _,;rovioion. The accused were l!lem'..,ers of the "Devils

Henc.nmen" motorcy1.,le 6 anb . They tried t o gatecrash a party

at 20 _t;veroleit:,h 3treet , Dunedin , at 1 . vO a . m., 24th .• ue,u st ,

1974. It wa~ a private party for memLers of a ;ootball cluL .

0ome of the bang :ere a1·med and wanJ v,ore -.:erman ,,orld 1/ar I I
helmets . Taey ¼ere refused entry to the party . .,i thin a

short ti ·e some r.iembers of the gang &tarted to lircak 1,indovrs

in the house and then cars' windows pa ·ked outside . Some of
the men in the party ru..-,hed out to try aid disperse the

i nvaders . '.;.'i1ere 1/3.G a consequent pitched uattle . T} e

Court hel ,. at tnere had. oeen an unlav,ful
"' assemtly.

~hese fact situations are indicative of just d1en

the police \1111 use thi::, t-'1 ov 1....,ion . ~he facto also show
that t11e police use this section :..ef0re a ,c;ltuation uf "riot"

occu~·s (althou 6 h in the B. v .'::>p1ing situation the: pal.ice would

1ave been justified in applying s.87 i . e . the riot provision
in the Crimes Act 1961 .) .

The offenc& of unlawful assemLly is an independent

o ft;nce which does not 1 e-!Ulr<.; t11at any reach 01 the pe.:..ce

or lot ....,hould have oc cur 1. ed . ( Th e assembly v,ill only become

a riot under s.88 if it bebins to disturb the peace tumultuously .)

In~ · v Vi ncent ~lderson B. said :
 1 6.

11
I tak1;; it to lJe the la,; of the laL1d that any meeting

as8emLled under tiULh circumstanceb AS, according to ~ae

opinion of r tiunal und :irw m,.,r1 .:..r I likel;y I to p.l o-

llou.1.·uood i"' .... n unla,,tul a.:.sewc,ly." (27)

ro .. 11lie e,alls this a "pr~ •.>l.,nt. tendency" (28) to create a

r~a~vnable appr&h&n._,ion u a LreaLh 01 Lne ~e~ce. It ii:, ~u"uiai t ted

uat l.llS ·s tue corr-et Vit.,W Jf the law. rnis is in c.,onflic

.. 1t.1 K nny (29) (or dl Jic., ey .. ho oaYb tnc.1. t unla;, ul a.,,sembly

must. nave pre::;~nr, ~1,e . . . bOV(;. "pr l.,oent tenaency 11 is dou.,tful (.)0))

tho ...,01.y..., t.ncJ.L a deci.... ion c.1.b to a "future" c;1.ct o · vio.1ence is 1::,uf1-

icient. ..2hus a .. iee :..ing J. o unla1, ful pur J?O;.:,e without sue,n a

11 present tend.ene,y" to creci.te a l..reacn of he peace i.:.o 11ot u.n

unla ful assbmbly. .r .at this is tne sta e u t11e law (and

(.,,\.l ,ayo huS '.., e1::n UlluE;r ..,octiric.ation) lS ot..ei from a literal l t::ading

of tne am 1a1;;cl section i. -• ~ - •.... c;1.sse1. 1..,l1;; in ..,ue,h a anner or

oO c. onuuc t tne..isei ves .,nen ct"'._,em uled i;l.._, tu I

cauoe,' per::;o.1s ..... to

ea ••••• ..... II An eA~mi?le on tnis pvint. is that a

,cet11.g tu iJL.m ..... 'LurtSlar y i~ ot c.t u la, 1ul ai:;serobl.1 a.., tht:r(.; is

o .i:Jresen!: tcns.:'ency to l.,r&~tt: a • easO.;o.ble ap.l:'reh nsion uf a

'...r ach uf tue _pea1.-e (a.ssuiuillt., aJ. so ~ •. 01.t tner_, is no actual

ai stu.rb,.<.11ce it.n,r).

I i"' bU1uiti,ed 1..uat tLe ..,tatut,.,ry 1l orisl n L. rE.;4Ui ... ine:,

tn .... t tie "'s1;;mul 1:::, .. ould act.uu.lly 'caus II

n i ·,uou1 in 0 perso.1i:; to

t::. t~.1.~t~in o. e or vLu1::r vf tl .. e specifi8 · fi,;;ars, ue ..,t: 'tion is

pu::;si' ly n..u· ·ower tuu.n tn"' LO .,mun la .. , ,,hicu .is i:;~t-"-~fi\c.:d i~ th1::r

:s a lB eli~ood that ~uc.h 1ear~ would be a1ousud 1; tn~ &s"'emoly

,.n area. of co 1:u::,ion ha.., in tnt;; past ariven aL"o ov0r t1 e

fact uf tl1~ ~istinction Letw en a riot and an ~ nlaw fu l assem~lJ•

• iot is ...,et uo m clearly in s.87 an~ s.87 ( 1) saying 11

••••• 11as

bei;un ••••• " illustrate, when an unla, ful assembly is no lone,er

such out has evolved into a 1iot. r11s distinction is ver~

 1 7.

compared to one yec:1.r for unlawful assembly. The leading

decision on what constitutes a .ciot ls Field v .cteced.ver of
1etropolitan Police (31) where Fhillimore J. said:

"T ere must be five elements present for the assemblage

of persons to constitute a riot -

( i) At least three persona present

(ii) rl com~on purpose
(iii) An intent to help one anotaer by force if

neces~ary abainst a person who lliay oppose

th~m in the execution of their common

purpose

(iv) ~xecution Oi' inception of the common

purpose.
( v) Force or violence not ~erely used in

demolishing , but displayed in such a

manner ao to alarm at least one person

II
of reasonable firmnecs and courage.

It is submitted tn~t on a lit~ral interpretatiun of

s . 87 eleme:nt (iii) i& not necessarily to ...,e 1-1resent in .- .z.

for it to be a 1iot . In unla,ful assemLly only the first t~o
eleme. ts need to be present (as well as of course, the re4uisite

fear of 1esonable peo~le on reasunable brounds). It is at

point (iv) that the once ''unlawful assembly" becomes a 11
riot 11
for the purposes of b. 87 .

A case ~hich illustrates tne fin0 distinction between

a 1iot and an unlawful a sernbly is t1& Canadian ~ase of R v

Bea~t1e1 (32) decided in tae, anitoba Court of Appeal Ly

In this cabe a crowd o over three hundred

people forced their way into Lne Manito a City Hall. On the

facts it .vas ch:a ly established tnat the assemLly aad become

unla1iful as soon aa th0 la ge crowd 'oegan to make tueir ~,ay to

City Hal l in a thr eateni ng I anner .

 I 8.

"Indeed with the 1 ush of such a number of men

'kic ing up an awful row' - I can se8 th~t tnere

was d ecidedly J t tl,..,_ t moruen t ••••• a tumultuous

disturbance of th~ pe~ce •••• and cons~quently a

riot. 11

The only 1 eauon tlie ju1·y in th~ lower court C:idn I t

findtl1(; accused 0 uilty cf a riot was on account of his youth

and for some peculiar reason tlle Crown c.id not particularly

presb the count. Tnis Gaae is useful in demonstrating when

<An "unla .. ful assemLl;y" c"'11 Lee, ome a riot i.e. when the unla,, ful

assemLly be~ins to disturb the peace tumultuouoly.

The law emains the same on this oistinction tvday

a~ it diJ before the 1973 ameudment. It is cu1ious that

Farliament ha"' amended s.CG of the 1961 Crimes Act viithout

giving attention to s.87 (1) whicn still reads:

11
t• riot is an u nlawful a.,,sembl.> that has be$Un to

disturb the peace I tumultuously'."

If the interpretation which ;Iaslam J. in E v

Hamilton (54) - to be discus~ed later - placeti on the meaning

vf "tumultuously:i one can anticipate fe ·, clifficulties arising

out of the difference 1etween the t,o sections. It mignt 1e

arbued tlat since s . 87 (1) wa~ not amended to read:

"A riot is an unla\dul assembly tnat ias be 6 un to

1
Uae violence against persons or property'."

tr1en Parliarne11t 1 egar·ds 11

tumultuouslyt1 as meaning "use violence

a 0 ainst persons or pro1)erty 11 • Or at least tnat tne 11c;mov.,,.,1

of t'.t. former· for the addition vf tnc la. t Ler would ef .i:ect no

material change in th~ law.

 19.

a further area of confuciion Letween unlawful

absembly and riot io evinced by Holdbwortn (3~) who alonb

with ot.nt:r .. riter"' (e.g. Lo.mba.1.a ana Dalton) t:i&lieves that

unlawful ai;;sembly is a preparation of riot ,,nich want"' but

execution. ':'his view tu.a.tan unlawful assemLly is an
incipient riot is analytically unsound. In many circumbta ces
it may be t1ue, Lut in other circumBtancea the participantb

in an c:1.ssewlily 11Jay 1 ave a '1!len"' rea" quitt: ina.ppropriat1;:; to

1

an inchoate 1iot and yet t.~ere ~ay be a sufficient app e.enbion

of a oreach uf the peace 1esulting. In tne former ci~cum-
stances tne participants .. ould be determined to carry out

a cowmvn pur.i:,o.;je lawful or u1la\iful) but in the latter cir-

cumstanceo t;.;Ve.1. yone in tr1e assembly maJ nvt be so determined

o~ even ~ave dif.1.erin view"' ab to the purpose:

".i:'huu -,hilst tnere is ~Oi.,e rt.la tion oetwt..en riot

an' unlawful absembly in te1 m.... vf a tendency to

cauce feur to thb ordinary ci tizt.n the logical

rebtric~iuns o the 'incipient 1iot 1 tnco y

u1u.st 'ue avoided." (36)

Before codification of "uula .. ful assembly" and

11
riot" a further diffie,ulty uf istinction oce,u . . red between

"unla .. ful auscmbly" and 'rout''· 11

1~out" wab in the area
0etwben ,mla\, ful a..,sembly anC: ri0t. But it is uUbmitt~d
that 1out is not iJport~nt in longer, un<le th1:;;
statut0 au it is a co,nmon law uftL,nce. Von nazelson (37)
oays t11at rout could e;it.l'lcr be a riot 0.1. unlawful asserublJ

under ~. 87 or s . 86 res-ectively.

re have nou identified the offence of unla~ful

assembly ana have seen tne diatinctioa which exists between

it <Arrl of1ences of a very ._.imila1 nature. T1is puts us in a

better position to discuss its essential eleme0tsas they

exist today and ha e alway& existed since its codification .

 20.

I. The Actus Reus

( a) "Three or More Persons"

All of the sections on unlawful assembly (inclu ding

the Canadian provision on unlawful assembly s . 64 (1) ot

tht: Canadian Criminal Code) have contained the re-

quireoent that 11t1..ree or more persons•• must be present

to constitute an unlawful assembly . This of course
must be capaLle of proof . According to "Smith
and Hogan" ( 38) if three pe1s ns are assembled and

t~o resol v e to set upon the third this is not an

unlawful assembly , ut lf tnere are four and three

resolve to attack the fou1th it is . (For the
section so..ys "three or more persons , 1,ho v;it:i.1 •••••
c;1.ny c Oi. mon purpose 11 . ) In cases on this offence ,
throu 6 hout the con,mon la •, cou n tries , the number in

s uch assemLlies has variea from three to five

thousand (39). It is ,.,lear t;,at in an assembly
~hich is unla~ful, all those present need not be

a rested or convictea (i.e. t!,e assemLly can be .. ith

pe bOns unkno~n) to validate p~oceedings a~ainst those

arrested . (e.t,;. Beach and Lorris v g (40)) The

practice in Canada hau usually been to arr est the

~ing-leaders (8 . g . R v Campbell (41)) or a perpet-

rator of viulence ( such ac a 0tone-thro~1e ) • In .;. z.
in g v Ai tken a~l the participants vere arrested - lt
is submitted that this 11
unu suc.ll" action was adopted

by tne police becaube of the unique nature of the

"bikie" situ<-<tion e . 0 • tne co,1muni.ll nature of ...,uch

g.:..ngs ; ti e problem., of idcn tifying ti10 rin 0 leaders

on the fact,:5 of this c...ase; tiia a.1.·rest of a few

,ould have been un likely to nave restrained the

remaininb nu~b r . • lao , th~ fact that in gang

conflict situat ions there is often b.o 0 roups of

three or more assembled vith a cOmDOn purpose .
 21.

Cb) " sse.1ble 1.n such s+ manner, or so c ond.uc t themselves

when assel!lblect 11

These "two'' ele ..wnts remain in s. 3 o: tne 1973

Crimes .11.mendment Act. .11. recent unreported cave on
tnese two clisti. et elements is ~\ v Needham (42) .( 1975)
This distinction is adequately illustrated by ~r.
Justice 0 1 rteean when he said:

11
I t deals first ,Ii tn the unlanful asoembly
itself and tnen makes it an offence for

•
that unlawful assemuly, r with intent to

carry out any common purpose, 'to assemble'

in such man er as to cause persons in the

neighbourhood to fe~r , ••••• I will not read

the rest of the section. The secona
offence is such assembly »ith intent to

carry out any common purpose, so cunducting

themselves 'when assemuled', aa to cauae

~erson~ in ta~ neigh1ourhood 01 the assembly

to rear."

• In that case the appellant ~aci wrongly charged

tne first limb ~he1 the findings of fact established

all the insreJient& of the second liillb. (00

nder

the
c uarge was o.mencted unde1 s. 132 of the Su1.Imary

Proceedings r1.ct 1')':;7 from saying "to assemble' to

"when assembled".)

(c) ,1here the unla .. ful a;;,,sem'...,ly 1.,ay occur.

It is submitted that there is no crt~n 0 e at all in

tnis part of the offence ei~ner. The law still

remains that a1 unlawful assemoly can occur anywhere
(e.g. even on a , oving vehicle (43)). The contention
ha3 been as to whether it can occur on private premises.
It is clearly apparent on reading the section that
 22.

such a consideration is irrelevant. Many common

law cases illustrate also that an unlawful assembly

may occur on private premises (e.g. E v Vincent -

the unlawful assembly of sixteen people occurred

in a private house), also E v Aitken. In my

opinion such a rule is based on sound logic -

people's fear will hardly be le s sened by the fact

that the assemblage is lawfully on private premises.

The police may also legally enter such premises to

make arrests. Furthermore, under the rule in

Thomas v Sawkins (1935) (44) stated by the Lord

Chief Justice, a police officer may enter and

remain on private premises when he reasonably

believes that an offence (e.g. unlawful assembly)

will be committed there if he does not remain

present (Also cf s.317 Crimes Act).

(d) "Cause 11ersons in the •Neighbourhood'"

That the unlawful assembly must be the 'cause' of

the requisite fear is obvious and needs no clarific-

ation being a question of fact in each case. The

IS
oLi.e.c t lel"'ent in this phrase"in the •nei hbourhood" .
0

The _per::;ons put in fe<-<r mu::; t Le in th1:: 11

neit,hbourLood"

of the unla~ful assemLly. ~he question arises as

to what co nstituteL Lein 0 ln the ''nei 0 !1Lourii.ood 11 •

~uil liam J. in R v rtnderson (4 ~) said tn"t ~he ~ord

"neign uou1·'1ood 11 :

' ••••• de i1.es v.i thin easor,able limits the 1,1lace

in .hich ea"h 0f the r. c:mLers o tne ass m·uly is

shown to ave et.n. 1

A mor e Jefinitiv"' ..,tutet!lent .,ao ma e by Lord IraiL,hu.m

in D.l-'..1:. v I~amara (1 973) (Ij6) .herein lie said:

 2.3 .

11
In those Cabeu ( unlaJ.Ul ausembly) 1 in the

neiL tour.1000' l'J1ust be ... ed.'.i in tht: context as

tlie equ.l. valen t 01 'those ne"'rby 1 •

11
Lord ail sham

th0n elabor<-<tea tn.l.s further Ly so.ying ~h~t such

perbOllo in tne nnei,htour11uodn means 11

in the

resence of i 111ocent third l-arti e o 11 • (47) Therefore ,.

tn peopl" put in f6ctl , ust Le t1.ose in tne ll.ea..

vicinitJ uf t,e ~sse ~ly. In

..
.Li • ....J . ' in the ·ecent

cases under • 8t 1) and th, ne11 arnendrnen t , tut:J

u::..u .... l "neit:,hbournood" to ue fuuu'"' tu fulfi:'..l ~:.e

•
·equ1.remc:nt6 vf this Iirst part of t,1e 01 fence 11a""

een th .str__,et un .. hich tht: .... sset,lLly ,.as situ a t e

(e . c . Drummond .... tr{;et in .. e.1.li.,, ton in the unre1 or ted

case of R v amilton (1973)) .

( e)

r1 e a.ssem ly "'lust "cauoe pe.rso s l. t 1e eig:1tour. ood

v! tne assembly 'to fcd.r 1 '' , on Bd.vOnable ~·ounds that

th H~Ople in t e asseu1.;ly ,ill eit ... er . :::'C ( a) or

•
s . 3G u) . ':.' ii~ !:,cttne p .. rase : c:to ..... ppearect in · 11

Lie s"'ction~ ..,f our 'rimei:, act on unla\· ful as~embly

ctnu. ...,o tne1·c can le no cnc:.n 6 e in L11e la .H,re . ':i:'o

ave "fectr 11 in its natur'-'l ev,._ryday under..,t"'ndi 1g , its

tc feel uneasines"' a '-'u t c..ll ir. .. i e., t ~a ber to

pe su or p ope~ty . It is a feelinb of -ppre .. eno_;_on .

In ea ~aulish1n1:, L11it:, f ea it au been tie pr<l.ctice

of ~ourts in~ . ~ . to Lave ~it.esses appe~r 1efo e

"nem desc;ri l i ,~· ow they felt feur ,.nen :;ne as mbly

t,ci.tue1·ed ned.r t 1em . 8 . g . 1·.r. rir ophj iu g v Ai ti{en

s""id "hE; ac~ion uf the r.otorc;ycllst"' i11 the 11ouse

next G.u or .,o his , cauved llir to feel c:tpprenensive

about h~ safety of 1is f-mily ctnd ~ume . lu t ~ram

aeciued Cd.~e0 it is not necescary 01 the ~ourts to

 call su~h witnesces e . ~ . Prendergabt C. J . 1•• in R v

4eatt1e Ur'2J said:

If
t,here i.as ev idenc"' g iven by })er sons pr ,sent tnut

the SCLlle did not arvUa8 in th~m S~Ch a fe~lin~ uf

f e""'.1. t..nd it staems tha 1.oven if HE- . . e aC r,ot -:..een

tnis ~irect eviuence tn""'t ~atte uf fear

. ould r ti:l b1., o,.e tu t a Ju ... y c oulc, inf r fI. o ••. l-h

o'i; •• e ci cu, st nceo . '

acco·~inblY, t ~ judge or tne jury in thE- cas e of

•
an unla,.ful a.::.scmbly, can dra .. tn lnference from

t.e ractu u1 tue case that the actio1s of l-hL

asseml.ly . ould :,av.., cauue d peo_ple in tne v .i.cini ty

to "fear' . , r. ,Justice ""ui.1lL,.m .. as .:.:tule to <:ra\

sucn ~ iufe e~CL o the ~actQ i ~ v dnderuon (1 ~74 ).

C e 4ly tne absence of any .,ii:.r1e,~s ..,aying o/he f..,lt

the c::'-1u.i.~i te 'f a '' is :iot eost:n tial to constitute

tne uffence . ~ is ia .i.n c 0nflic t it .• tr G v1e1

of Fis er J . $•• who was a ctissenti g judge in the

Le said t:.a t

• it i o es.:;;en tia.l tha. t tae

th uf ... ence i~ not ~ade out.

fro1,1 rea. ... inb Q o

8 Le uUCh

39 vf the 1.,anadian 1.,ri.riinal Code

6l i tneou ut11e ·wise

c~e ure~ iis conclusion

1,UJ.di

is no·oeo si1ilar tu s . 6 u

riLla fac~c the SLCtiun e u~r0s p eople in tne n ith-

Lourirood tu 30 !'ear. Al::,O the i:lppec:. c,1.nce of .. it-

•. e::;ses in tHe n1;;:iul.Lourh0 d .. avin 6 thut fear , i.,eing

e uirad tu be proouced is ore "just" to the accused

as tne p~~ticip"'nts in -n unlawful au~emuly uavG only

co1 itt c~ tue ffenc& if people in tue n<--i 0 ulourhood

nave Leen in f~ct put in feu. .,'nat tne ju ga or Lht

jury infers to oe fedr i th~ circuristances m"'y not

nave ~ctu"'lly ean. rnis would be a. further

"..,afeuUi:tri.1 11 a 0 aL st any abuse L t,;e ,t>Olice of thio

~E::ction .
 (1) II
, e e ee on rea>lo1w,ble i,rounds''

Tue 'fea " which ·µeu11J..e na.ve of tnt; use of iolenc.e

at.,ain&t pt:ri:;ons or p opert.> "must e cased on

'rt.acona.ble 6 rouuds 1 " . rhe le ..... c.ing authority vn

,ha.t cunol.d.erations :,ust Le borne in rnind when

ap~lying thil:i test is R v J i ncent . In t is case

"You will inve:::.ti ate a~l the ci cur.stances under

wnich the assemt.,ly took place - wheL1.er tlie

•
... n iv i duals ,1.r10 presided and were present ,.ere

~o Ly~ ev10U1::i con ent o~ by acc1dent~y naving

met - ard if tney rnet L) previous onsLnt you ~ill

in½ui e whether tnt.y have _et ut unr~asona.ble hou r s

of th~ nigLt - if tLey na.~ met unaer circumstances

01 violbnce - it t1ey uav e been a r med witfi offensi ve

weapons ur used viulent lan bu .... ge - i1 tnay nave

pro used to cauze 1,.;J.aos con li<..t vr hill anJune . 11

tt1e
FactoJ. s \lhic t1 HdVe le' cou.1 L to uolc tnat/1~ar ,as

•
"...,ased on 1 euso aole t rouuC:o .ay be oumrna ... :Lsed us

fullows . The wa.Y i.1 ,,hich tlie nieetin 0 wa.s .1e Ld

(i . e . turbulenc~ of it); tne ti e (if at nigHt it

is bOrc likel to ause an iety) ; tie lant;uage

rnG. ts liKe "I'll il.,_ any .:;o -uf'- ""-..,itch lti... . t L,1"-es

u ahuvel up Lo go to .u K ..,oa .... y 11 ( .,11) • ould also

un ea80 able Grounds c auoe fear i a person) ;

0f weint r:lled or acLuu ly drilled ( )J ); COnvU lp '.:.ion

U! alcui10l y ,,embvr~ 01 1,ilC 3.S.:.e bly (.)4) j u n the f-

Ga..,01uble 0 J.OU.d to 1ut )8ople 11 fe .... r . viously

 26 .

tnc....oe facturL re Tuot e~uaustive .

l.;;o tne:::,e people 1,nu c:1.rL- pllt in ea un tho::;e

c,l'OUnd..., a'uuve u t nvt ue "timid" or 11

fuulL:ih 11

.lJGOpl bi_,t II
irm ""nd l~ tio.1al" m1:;n . (;>6) 1.1al

c.onstitute..., ''fi m .... no ... ati on""l r.. en will of ~uurse

...:.ep..,nd o .. \,h .... t the ju be r tne ju.r·J conceives .1im

to e. An e)l.ample of .. h,:;n Gl
11
fi m c1.nd rdti on .... l"

pU '... L. f&a. on rec:1... . 01 c.tble br ou11ds is ~t:en

in v Ec;1.r L.,._"' 0rs (';/?). In this caob u.P.

l.onc.>- 0 11an nela t1.d.t "firm J.nd. rational'' . en

•
...> . .. .

.ould not Le put i.1. fca.1' un rc;;auonuble bround.., by

t.1e liL i1 tin 0 uf a fire in tat. r .misc: s where the

assemblagE: ,,as, uut LnE.y w ....uld Le put in su,.;h fE:c.r

.,nt: .1~m ero of tx1e a..,s 1...,ly stc:1.rted ... ippiug off

tr1L-ir fe .et: r ..... ili.nr,..., a"d violently rcoL,ted a .fire

ere. ·.,t1.i.ch l1ac... co 1e to ex tin ui.sh ti.e Llaze .

11
t SE, viuls,uC C a Ai 1st el bU S 0r property 11

'i' is p'.ra .... e c1.ppear~ ir. (a) o..id ( b) of s . _::i of the

•
Crimes .cmend.ent .H.:t 1973 . '!:'hio ic the first

explicit d i:,c.rture fro, .. Uie .. ording o 1 li1e prt: ious

.... e tio •• ~ 1.ic .• a· put i. ~l.e 1: l ce of tuc....s , .cdc

tne 1, ase 11
distur' tne pev1.ce turnul tuou . . . ly" . It
is .... ub~itted t .~t ~ue latter p:rasc ac int~rpreted y

tn u o u.1. ts iJr..1.ur to 1975 ... ean.., no m..,re or leuL th ..... n:

11 • • • • • use viole ,ce -bair,st perso11s or

propertJ . 11

tne wo a., a opted in t,11.;; 1973 ame dm1;;nt .

Fo.1 &n as .... em~lJ L0 1~ u1law ... ul lt must rulfill the

requlrcment..., al ... ~a·y 8DUmerated and it must also

e.i.tner (a) cause ~e le in tn ne.i.gaLou~~ood vf

tne ~ssem'ly to fear on reasonable round that tne

 a..,sewbly ~,ill "use violence a 0 ainst Dersvns or

prupe.tJ" or (b) cau..,e such peup,e to fear on

rec1.sonable 6 rounds tna t ot.,1ers .. ill Le provoh.ed

by tl1a.t assemuly to "use violence against per sons

or property. "

,hat C:oeo "to disturb tn"" pe.J.ce tu1t1ultu ously" ri1ean?

1he autnorities c..re cle ..... r as to its 1.. eaning. Tne

most Qc;finitive ot~tem~nt on t,e mea,in 0 of the

pi.1 ai:,e ~b ~ ,.l 0le is found in , v .damil ton in an

oral direction to a ju,y y. r. Justice ~aslam . ~e

said :

" · • • ••'to c..istu i.:, the peace tumultuously' ••••• means

tle urousing of fear u r~aoOndble g~ounds that by

violence co .t-'ersons or property ti..a t cd,,vem oly , ould

i.:, t• rb tHc pe-1c e." ( .J8)

I'hdt interpret tion c.,f t .• e pl1 a .... e .. u.co cxp1'essl

a optbd ~y ~uilliu.m J . in. V nnderoon , anc.. al...,v

b.r .: : . -i • .tate1...:;on ..., . , • in rolice v ,td1.c..m . ( 59) In

•
tl1is cai:,e th{.; accused were uni ver s.1 ty students .. hu

HaC been charged witn unla~ful asscmLly u.fter p

testi1g about~ . ~ . r ilit~1y installatio sat 1eeduns

ana ~arewood fro, 23rd to 25th; a r ch , 1~7) . 1 ere

Lad Deen about tnirty demonstrators .111 all . ~oCKo

we1'e t1.1r0 .. n at 1 olice and r1.ir Force peroonnt:il , ,,ho

,;ere protectii1g Lh1.o ct...,e i1 or,, ""n,r attack ..1hich 1•• iL.1t

e sta 6 ed . vix to ei 6 1 t demouotratur·::; ..,rokb down

..... fenc:e line . Fa er..3011 .:i . 1.. found all the accused

paiticipdnts: an unla~ful a~s8m11.r .

In arrivin 6 at nis uecisio he s..i.iu that "tumultuously'

ineans 1a 0 ituted , .. overnent , exciteme 1t anu noibe 11 •

Lh.1.s n t only
 28.

definiLion but it is ex~ctly th0 same as t~clt meaning

0 iven to t.1e te.Lm uy Lye-'-1 J . in Dw,ver Ltu. v

, etr0.,,ol1tc.1.n r olice District .\eceiver (60) w.1erein

he also .3ci.id :

'In my juvgern"nt tn1:; word I tumultuou::;ly 1 was added to

'riotuoubly' for tne specific reason thclt it ~aa

intended to liwi.., the li<..tbili..;y of coropensu.tion to

cases ihere the Liotero were i such nu .. b~rs clnC in

ouch a .state of 0 i ta ted cora,_o .,ion c.1.nd were 1..,ene rally

so d.Ctir1 0 tuat t:ie 1or c eo of la, and orae ... should

have een well a,,a e uf t:.e -c.111 e.,. t 1,uicn e ... isted

••• (01) ••• cc:1. ~i. da1,a 0 e."

In ca.n te s~en in oti1er recl.;;nt case~ in ,. • •

..,efore tile 1915 amendment taat .'aslam J .' s definition

1a~ wiuely accepted as uein 6 tne correct uefinition

0 .... thl, p,1ra..,e I u distur u tut: peace umLlltuously"

(e.g. L1 E. v ,.i.,ken t11e fear ;,ab clearly tu ... t _,f

- pv..,Lible use of vioien~e g b inst pe pll.;; or

=-

•
p oper tJ; ~n ... i v Aulam it .. as tne li1rnli:iooa

ctno the actuul cornm.i...,si0 1 viulence ,.hich tue

.....e:renoe 1t..., .. ere fou d .,o ua11e co 11,1i~ted ,,hich 0,1 -

stituted th1:; u 1lc:1.,.ful a..,senLl .}

Conclu:::;i ely , tn . . coLlrts u .•1..e "'tood tut: piirase "to

0.isturb tne, peace tumultuously" to be nut11in 0 rnure

ur les~ tuan ~ fear that the aosemoly ,ould 'use

violence agai st persons or p uperty" . The ,.,anadian

cc:1...,e~ , whlch are decided under a sectLon in Lae

vanauiun Criminal Code whic is worded exactly like

s . 86 i thb Crimes rtCt 1961 al~o support t a t

proposition . In ::? v I at terson '<111ere the .. hole e, ourt

wus agreed tuat e assem1ly 'initially" thou 6 h

e~citement was abound no unla1ful au~~mb]y ua~ cowe

 29 .

i n to existo.n1.. e. They f ormed tn0 opinion tnat tne

assemLl y 11..came unla,ful wuen it becams manifest tnat

the as s embly ac deta mined to weet io ce with force

(i.e . "use of violerice .... 0 ainr:;t pe sons or property" ). ( 6 1)

lience the amendlllent her e adus notnin 0 r.e to the

section . The e 4 uation "en vf tht; olu term "disturb

t'1e peace tumultuously" with tne ,1e, term 'use

violence abainst per oons or p1·ope ·ty" is L)ased on th1 ee

0 ::. ouuds. Fir...,tlJ , :,aolam J . ael1.ve ·eu. is ju.u 5 e-

.nent in tne Supremt Cour t ,,hic.h , of course, binds tne

•
l.agistrateb Courts wnert- most unla~ful acsemoly cases

will be aeal t wit. , • 0econdly , ot,.E::r cc1.s e b beside

~ v hamilton draw no distinction betWt;Cil L,e two

l. 8.J. llib • (e • b• eh~ Canadia., case::; sucn as E v

av&litcu (o2) o.ecided in Lhe I-ant.Lac Distr.ict Cou t

of -ctuebec) . Thirdly , ~lso the lo~ic of tne situ ation

o unlawful ar:;ser.. bly ,Just clea.rl.y me""n th--.t tne fear

i:.u people ~ill have ~ill oe of violence agai nst

tneu selves a.lH.1 ot,.1e s or dam.::..i:;e to i:.htir proptor ..,y .

(e . g . any type uf 1nt1miaal,ion is usu a..1.ly co - 1 0lat.i.ve

.~t a tnreat of violence) . Jon Dad0l~on ( G3) i:.h~n ,

it is bUDuitted io correc ,,hen ne sc..ys :

1 In the li 0 ~.. ::, CJ.L the &ccept e d interpre tion uf tnat

'olu ~asnionect l~nbu .... ge' (wnich io ,ow Dr . Fi n~ay ~n

tae 19?4 .; . t;.L • .., . ic ·eferrec to 'distu·b the p(.;ace

tumultuously') I oelieve tuat th~ unly ·eal ben8fit

ac.nieveci by its replacement i..., l,Q rnd.k8 it IJJOr~

rGadily und.el st0od uy t "'" laym .... n (a par l, fror.i re-

i.,o ing the ,ord I turnultuously' whic.1 some court

c1.erks 1i 0 at find di1ficult .,o p.Lonounce) . "

l'he approac,1 01 the courts uOvi on thE: ne,. amendment

still remains the sa1i1e aG it was on s . C,6 of the

 ;>O •

Crimes Act19C1 e . 0 • 1--olice v ::1arris .... :Ors. (64). In

tnis ~ase on the eve inb of Jtn February 1974 the

occupants 01 number Gb 1·,art1n .3treet , Uppe1 ::utt,

arranged - pa.i. cy to .. l,i..; 1 p& ~sons Lelon 0 ing to va .. 1.ous

1,1otorcycle a.nc.. ca.L 6 cJ.11gs were .J.llvited . At o. '.)v p . t'l •

..... fire lit on tnc pr1;;miseb . 1'Bere Wu..o HO UnJ.a dUl

asoemul fo ·med at .. 11.;.1.t ti ,11e in 3- . 1'. l'lonaibllan .3 •• , . 1 s

opiniun. Largv numb""-' a . . rivea. at 10 . 3v v. m. Later

...1.rrived tu e:xt1n 0 ui...,u th&..t fire and were met wit11

1 eblSLance (abusive langua.ge aHd so:,,e uo .. tles tnruwn) .

xlbte n1;;c then. /nis case clearly shows ~uat it is

when the fear, un eaoon~ble 0 rounds, is thQt of the

use of violence abainst p ... ope.L"~ or person~ then

rlu,._, ls

e:xac ly tu8 ap ~rv~~h ~aca tnur J. in R v . Ai tk1;;n

aaopt1:,d . 11.lSO tU(.. apprv ..... CU 01 .. agee J • it • in g

V 1-,. . ..t & 'oun is t l same . ::e 1 ounu 1,11a t no unla .. ful

a0S1;;u1 oly :,act been cons ~i tu tt-u 1,U1:;;n l,11e rov;u 01

people ,as fairly 1 ienaly a.id yuiet clld th1.:1e . . ore

no i0J_~ 11.,"' .,a.., L i..... ni e..., "ea as likel.Y " 01;;cur .

reopl in tne , eighLour:,ooG. .. a.y ~ave 'feo..rt.-d '"'buse ' 1

u~inu th u .. n a. Lhei, o ouch likb 'uu t t . . ,cy could 1101:. u.. t

uc it io vlvar t,1<... t Dr. Flnluy cl!lu 1,he Lauour·

uOVE: ,lll.eut Werv dOt only u1ot_;_V<.1.te UJ a ~es . . . r1.- '-V

11 otrt-n 0 then " thc: puwer.., uf he policc: in dealing <Y.i.t

Ugly gan1:::, oitua'_,iOno L.JJ 11 clcl lntr' tu .,heil' i)O I d o, uUt

~lso tu alleviutu the ~ro~lem th~t was .,houLht to

e ist of " 1 u .. c-=:rtainty' about the ,.eanin 0 and extent

 31.

of the language used" (65). Haslam J. in R v

Hamilton referred to "disturbing the peace tumult-

uously" as having "a sort of •archaic ring' about it".(66)

It was language which the English Criminal Commis Lioners

had used back in 1879 and was in our 1893 Act, but it

is submitted there was not, in 1973 prior to the

amendment any uncertainty about the meaning of that

phrase. The "meaning" and "extent" of the language

was already ·1 certain" before Dr. Finlay brought in the

1973 amendment in November. The English Courts had

made a definition of what it meant in Dwyer Lt d. v

Hetropolitan Police District Receiver, etc. as already

seen. Also, the Canadian Courts dealing with an

identical provision in their Criminal Code had no

difficulty as to its "med.ning" and "extent". Further-

more Haslam J. in R v Hamilton gave a clea-E, .:~tatement

as to its "meaning" and "extent 11 ,·,hich was adopted by

the Courts in N.Z. The Police then would have been

certain as to its meaning. Only laymen with no

legal training v,ould be aided in respect of "meaning,"

and "extent" of 11
to disturb the peace tumultuously" .

If the purpose of the exercise ~aH clar1fication of a

statutory pro\i6ion, ic is st1an~~ in tne l i 0 ht 01 the

eAists ti1c..t tue .inister of Justice should in 1'173,

select a prov sion that did not ~quire it?

(·) ",.,., i tm.i.t neie,hbourhuoct or elsew1ere"

This is a ne~ aJdition to t~e ~ectiun in s.b6(1)(a)

.
which sa 1 b in fa~t, un a l1te~~1 interprct.,ation, th~t
 _.)2.

th'-' peO!,J.Le in the ne..1. 0 ~1-uOLd.'llvOd. ,.: 0 feel an,Y fE-:ar,

tu.,.,

p1 o_l)ert or pc.uple .Ln tii.e neit:i1uou.1. nuod, or it can 'ue

of ....,uch vio.1t-nc.,e in oO,lC ot..Le aJ."ca (.L.e. 11

o r else,;uere ') •

vl.Ul-1' ..:,t;l- l-iOn...., on

tu ,lll tUvUc uib 1,lU Oct..!C l., 1,h&t n..,it,,1'buur1i0od or t-L:.6-

,,h re • ;,o re,_,t1 iction wa.::; 1Jlac1:;1- on t le "fear 01

.. n_,r1., i.:,n1:: turnul tuoJ.s c...is i-ur uanc" ,lib .. t occul' .

':'he fa.et .,li...... t t ieJ. e a1· - no ./,. eported ca::;6;;, to da te wi tu

a,:;sembly shu,,s tnat :.e cvurt.:, :,ave no nc:&c ..,o decide

cne 4ue...., i:,lon an__. hc;nce i l, migu t oe ar·gued tii.at 1.,ae

ct.ddil,ion o s.3o in t11at

nei 0 HLOt.u :.. ood or elsewhE-r e 11 is _,n tirely 1~uperfluous 11 •

}eople \,hv are J..,Ut in ear y a cro .. u , wi 1 l.ave little

dou t lhat e eh i ..· t. le lnte11tioH is ..,lecc::.rlJ HlcL ifested

tna., no iolence will be used aLainst pe~sons or

considerint., th fal,t .,nu.t '-'- cruwd can very '1ulcKly

evolve i1.., ~n ui vont_o1lable ob. ( o7 )

II.

( a) 1 ,1iv wit1 1 int nt' to cµrry out s,,llt .,,um,.,on plj.rposs:;; 11

Tuere must 0e ~n int1-nt presvnt . ...' ls 11

1..,,.ccnt" is

11 It niust ' e prove a ( uy tae prooecu tion) Lua. t J .

l ten~ea tu ~St, vl' cibt;t l.Il1, USG uf ,..1.0lcn1-e; or

acts
o .... o or u.ut "';\,n · en :.e .. now.:. t-O e likely -co
 5.J.

cc:tuse c.1. breach 01 thv peace."

rlhen for exc.1.mple, t, e likeli~o0d of a uislurbance

of the pe...i.ce c..epends un tue diopL....y of a. placaru. or uam1er

ever 3 Ll~ is not neceb&a1ily bUilty of c.1.n unlc.1.rlfu.L a&se ,~ly,

out the µarticular m~n is bO builty of tndt oiience if ne ~as

d.uopt1.,d the ct!1ller or .. i tn .. ull knowledbe o the e:;,i..:, tance

01 the placaru 01 oa.nJer na 6 iven his co-operation and

CO nten.;..1.Ge 01 tne d.Soemvly.

1he inten1,iun is to Garry uu., ti.1e 11

corc, ..,on pu.rJ,>OSe 11 •

It ha. .., long u1::en estaol1s,1Gd thu. t this 'com ... on pu ... po::;e'' call oe
It . y Le unlaw1ul eitn&r

1~ ~ue ~nd to bt a~hleve or iu tne ~eans tu De USt:U to

~~hieve thu1, enu. l-Oil..:,equen tly, if pbu!Jle Hc:1. e a.bS&.i led

tv 0 e1,ne under ::;UGn ci cumstances ao arb in fd.ct .Likely ..,o ·

:..c:1.us., alar , to UJcitanoero of 'firw anu rut1.on""'l ' 1 dicpo"'ition

tnt: astsembly .. i.Ll be i:i.n unla .. .1.·u1 one, even thougn 1,ne ori 0 ina.l

pu pcse for hicu .:.c. Cd.ml- tobe1,11t-r involved neitner· violence

,1or n v 11d' i::..leg ..... li 1,y. In~ v =unt (1820) (69) Bayley J.

said:

"You must look not only at the purpose for which they
meet, but also the manner in which they come and

to the means which they are using."

That the "common purpose" can be either "lawful" or

"unlawful" is clear also fror the plain lanuuase used in the

section which says '''any' common purpose".

In a situation where the police arrest people for

being members of an unlawful ass Pmbly they are normally jointly

char~ed as beinc members of such an unlawful assembly either

under s.86 (l)(a) or s.86 (l)(b). The practice of the courts

has been that t1e prosecution must prove oeyond reasonable

doubt that the individual arrested was a member and that he

 31,.

had the requisite "intent", before a conviction can be entered.

Under the present law ( and as it has ahi'<;;.ys been) such an

individual can be proved to be a "participant" or an "aider

and abettor". Here presence is not sufficient. ·rhis is a

safeguard against innocent bystandersbeing convicted, who

may be arrested in a large melee. In R v Cesarone (70) the

accused was convicted of being a member of an unlawful assembly

in tue court of first insta.nce. But on appeal he ,as acquitted

as the prosecution could not prove on the evidence that he ,as

a "participant" or an "aider and abettor", tht court l1old1ng that

ne wau ·erely pr1::sent a~, idle and non-participating spectator.

HowevGr, in v Adlam ( 1973) (71) honaghan .::i.1·,. wab able to

fina on th1:: evidence biven tnat all th" at,CUst...d .. ere 11

partic-

ipators" in tHe unlav.ful ao&emtly ,.hich occur red. ::e said:

"It is -,lec..r tuat tne.ce is no ail et, t eviuence uf

indi victual c...emonstra t urs Lelnb .i.aent1 fied as t:rny

.. 8re i 1 ,.u. tion. (But it is clear t, at all wer·e

prebe.1 t as L.11,.;rc , ert no ut:.E.:r Vt..hiC.lt: moveme ts

in tnu area in th~L. ti,e ot

d1:.mons"(;rct1:,0rs.) As I indicated ~arlier, tnt:se

are not people .,ho uecame part1.es Dy aiti.1.n 6 and

i.) tt..ing - c11t..y v1e1e 1.4::.1 p:.rticipants.' 1

his is in line "ith 1 v Flaws (72)

.iher& tne..L e is 1 ot i::;ufficient <- icie11ce . . ruubat

J.Orwarcl 1:,0 ..,ho I tllat the d.l..CUbe<l 1,0.::, a !!articipdtOJ., tnen ~he

prosecution r:mst prove ..1e 1a.., an 'aider o.nd abet tor ·1 • :::'1 io

course of pruving -cnc.1.t an at,CU.:;;ed is a pa ..:t.:y to an of.fc;nce is ...

esLa li~ e~ under s,oo oft e ~rimes act. The leading

o.UL 1ority on ,,hat constitutes being an ''aide anc... ab8ttor" is

g v Con",, (7 _;). 'l'he .:iuJgeme"1t 01 Lr. Justice 11awkins in that

Ca.ue l& 1,U one whil..h is moi:;t CO!Ji ,,On.Ly u.L!Opted uy 11e courts

on this rea uf L-ne la,. He said: (74)

 )5.

" ••••• 601,e active vtE::p0 must be.. takE.n by ,;Ord er

ac~ion, with the intent tu ..:..nstibat& thb principdl

er p in ip;.11::,. .t.nco..1 ra 0 em...,n t c1oe.s ,iot o1 nE>cessi ty

amo nt tu iding and abetcing, ..Lt rn .... y be .intentional

or unintun ional, a ... an ,.,o..y unwittingly "ne,.,u_i'age

anot 1e in 1act u.1 uis presl..,nce, bJ ll iuinterpr eted

1 01 ds, or b Sl. res or 0ile,,ce ••••• or :1e may

&n<-ourage ..L 1ten civnally uy e.Aprt.~sions, ge.5tu1 e0 or

In the

latter case ne aids an abets, in tne former he uoes

not."

his pavsage !ror,1 the JUdbc..1.1ent a.buVc: Wc1.-, auoptea

in the ;_,upreine Court deci0ion of 1•,acart,tc.r .J. 111 the unreported

ea~"' Ol ~ v rli~kan (1974) and ~ere recently by Roper J. in the

unreported ~upreme Cour ... decision in R v Sp1inb (1~74) ( 7J) .
1n t •. "' 1..,._.., ter case 1-<oper J. a1 ter a,;reei .. g with the judi:,1..,ment

<Above in v Coney sc1.1d:

11
,:hat the vrown raust prov e .1.s ..:..ntenti na.l or

.. ..Llful E:llCuur .... 0 elllent. ' 1 ( 76)

Clea1ly, albo on thib pa~ t 01 unlaw.iul c1.sse~bly the

new &me110ment ,a::, rou 0 1t a.bout no chanbe q~ v ;;.itrC1c;ll was a

cc1. e unddr tnc old s.oG (l)(a) and~ v &p1i1g waw a l..,ase unde

t,11" ne am"'nd11ent .)

Under· s.uC (l)(a)(u) tudeLure, .. neLner it ue tu

ne ~ or o section 1.,i1E:: ac,\.,used ~ ust llu.VL. tht,; 11

wE:n.::; re..,,."

enumerated abuve.

( o) L1e ..iec0nd Limb of i:;ection t.hr1..,e of t'1e Crimes

mendH1ent ,i.ct 19'?)

It is appropriu.te at this point o discuss the

second lim1 01 s • ..1 of the 'rimes Amend111ent ,.\.et 19r ..J ,.hie ::,ays:
 3b.

( b) ",/ill uy e,ha t asse,Jbly, ncJedlessly and

wi tl1ou t r easonaole cau..,e pr ovoke ot 1er

pe·sons tu use viulence a 0 ..... inst persons

or proper t.}' in that neiblluOUriluOd. 11

.. ithout th.1.s second liinb of the offence it woci ld

ue in tl e uncertain position that exists in this area of tne

offe ce of unlawful assembly i.e. ~here participants in an

urderly meeting, procesciion or demon stration, are a ,are that

they v,ill or are lH!.likely to, encounter opponents 1, ho are

prepared to breach the peace to intimidate the first group

or other~ise to prevent or impede their progress or proceedings.

It is clear from a comparison of s.86 under the

1961 Crimes Act an d that o s.3 of tL1" Crimes Amendment Act

1973, tne changes Dr. Finlay instituted. Firstly 11
to uisturb

the peace t umul tuously 11 wao 1 e p lac ed by •to u.;;e violence

at:,ainst per...,ons and property' and tues"' tu mo 11ere ..,u 0 ~ested oy

the .. riter ~o be .syn0,1owo s • .:,econctly, tner.., na., been ad ued to

change ,,hi ch is n ow of .1.ntc:re..., t, tne qut.;slion a1 ioin1:,, a oeo

it chan~e tne 3cope 01 s. SC (l)(b) of tne 1961 Crimes ~et?

cu\.,i1 pu,ver •

.~he pnr·a.c 11 in l,hc:1. t 1ei gnbouruoo 1

' is Ve.1. y e:xplicl t

anu unam .... 1 0 uo11s ""nci it.., ·e1y prc,i:.:L,ion J:,r..,cl Gt:& a couvic,t..:..on

or unla\,lt!l ..... ssernuly ,,d 1·1.; c;.n 3.tiv<c:!!lulj rnigu t pro 0,{e 01,ih,rs

to uu viol e. ce 11
e L;t-wher&". ... .ta1s for c...n o fen e to be

com1ui ~l,<c:t: unuo .,his p ..... rt of t.18 ::;ec tiun tht- police will now

nave to e.,tc1.blisn tnat the a&semL l y ,,ould 't;j eart-d to ~auoc

the auserably. ( It is o.:c.sumed tha t no "neigi:1bou1. 11ood·1 in

tn"' p 1rv1.s0 " ••••• Cd.Use pe1 sons in the I neig 1oour 100d I of
t e as.::,e1J1Llj 1 in th0 rirbt part of the .::;ec,tion is the same
11 neig11 ...,u r1uod ao tl,at. in tJ.1e pll.Lc.,..::,e ln o.8G 1 )(b) " in tnat

nc1~nL0Jr1oou 1
and that tne definition 6 iv~n to ~hi.::; term

oy Lord 1.ail~n ....m in V • .I:' • • v i\a.mara pertc.lins .,½ually to :...oth.)

An exuwple of ~his e.::,trictive (and unnece..,sa_y)

l.::;tinc:ion is ~s fo~lo,s:

A tsrol!J of 11
: ... ells An 6 els" r,10tor<-;yclist"' i1 Adelaide

. . oa. c , ~t,;ll illbtGa, <.,Onduct tnemsclve .... in ~u~h a

mc.,n ner us to cause peoi:,l ln adela.1.d.to _, oa J ,

,ellington, to 1eai on 1eaGonab:u gro~ndv tnat

.,his 0
roup will "nc. dlc.., .... ly ..... nd .. i~ho~t re""sonable

cause" pl ovokt. mcmucr b of the·' evi.io .. enchmen"

i.,otoi cycle ban 0 tu ..,ma.::,h up a nous"' in ,!il li.:,;

utreet.

I' 18 b ... oup or "Hell:.:, an 0 ... l.;;;" could not t,; arrested unJ.er

s.80 ( 1 )(b) 1or nl,,h,ful a..;s_mLly - u,n.:ver, t:,..,y could ..1ave

ucen under the ola bcC~iun a~ it c,ont~ined no bUC.n re.::;triction

on .,uere tue f1;,;;a ... of violei,.ce to .t'er.::;ons ur property could

occur to rind a convictio 1 for L<nla .. ful a.::,._,t,;m:..ly •

.t1.notl1Gr example f c.nis na1ro.,in1:., 01 tne scope of

s.6~ (l)(b) is to look at tne facts of Te Kooti's case itself.

Everyone kne · at 0potiki ( ,here Te Kooti ~,as uounL< over) that

Te Aooti anJ lns followers werE- ueadin 0 foJ.~ the u ibbO ne

istrict and was very unlikely to prove.Ke otuers into

'violence a 6 ainst persons or property'' at vpotiki. It wa.s

at Jisuorne that tnis ,au likely to occur. Tle peopl& there

were debparately arming tn8mgelves, readying them.::;~lvcs to

carry out orfensive (and defensive) reprisals ~ 5 ainst the

.aori C,hief ,1ho haa massa.cred .set clt-rb ln t: at a1 ea twenty

;1 cd.r., ue101 e. It JaG h ld in t.h<-1.t Ca.::;e ~hat 1e hvoti .. as

guilty of being a mem ue... o c:All unlavnul a.:osemuly. If 1,he

pr eut:ni: St:C t.Lon ad t.en ueen in 1 orce i:;his could not : ve been
 38.

unlebb it co~ld be bnown Lhat people in Opotiki feared tndt

violent-e ,,ould e uaea, by otl1ers Lecause of Te Kooti'.,

precien"'e, a 0 ~inst perbons or property in 0poLiki. (or that

s.86 (l)(a) was applicable)

lnis \.,h'""nge to oe d6 ( 1) ( t;) •• o t::Ver •,,lll bt: Of

little tf an· prat-tical effect. If the polic8 can't act

under s.oC(l)(a) it ould be credi~le ~nac tue people in

o ... ~1e.1.s nigut 1e pru110.r1:.ea i.1c.u <.;Oin1.ii .. tin 6 violen<-e against

p l'bOns or p.1. uperty in tuc.1.L nei 6 utiourhooC.:.. Tnu1::, not only

&tren 0 then" tne po,,ers

c...O~:::, t.uis auaition to ...,.u..., ( 1) ( b) not 11

,.., .
or t11e police out .1.t is an "unnecesoary" addition. ... 11e

extent 01 operation v tn~t p~ t of s.o~(l).

( c) The roviso 10 ~ec~ion Tnree of tne Crimes

Amendment hCt 1973

Anotner new dddition ~o 0.80 (l)(b) of th~ 1961

Crimes ~et is the pro 1....,0:

'Provided tna t no one 8hc.1..Ll. be deemed ~o provoke

0 .. 1.er persons I needlessly and wi-c.hout ed:::,Ona.b.1e

cause y oing 01 sayin 5 dn tai.g -c.~at 1e is

1 ..... 1,;ully ntitled tu uo or say. :r

It is su mitted tni...lt .;his proviso ..rn\.,h 1.reciko ot

Finlay · b"'ralism ·,a"' un 11:1ceoua.1. y "'s it a ~ ect& no cha. ge in

the aw vf' u11 a .. 1ul assem .. ly. Dr. iinlay r~fers to the

_pro,iso iA8 i...ln "adoi,:;ion..... l s ... fee:,u~ru. 11 an . . . as ..... n acKno~.ledg .rnnt

uf 'th~ r1. )it uf pe .... ceful an orderly u.emo.1stration''· ( tl) ;f-

otu uf uuse bta.tem~nt~ u Dr. Finlay are ui courae tru~ uut
 FirstlJ , l,nat tne

iaterpr"'taL1on b.> tHe 1.,vUl' s 01 tne purase "needle .::.J.y "'nd

~i"nou .. ~easu able c~u~e was ,iue enouL I to .... ov r any sit -

u'-'".1.un which tht; _provioo pu ... pvrt.s l,u .... ov u anu ..,3<.:ondly LJi .... ::.a.

vf µe0ple in c.1. ~u~l~c place . In t ut1 vu. so-call e d democra.tic

frct-dvTuS c.1.r1., Ve.1. y li.,1i tcd . I will no,, uok a tue"'e ~o

To d.1.bCUciS J first pro~osit.1.un bove it is nec e soci1.Y

. . o louk a.l, b11., cor.mon la .. in tl:1.i.s arc;a . S. Cb (1)(b) as it now

and na.s u.l,,ciy s appeared ( witnou tn" "in tha L eiL,11 oouri1ooa 11

aaditiotl) iu a coctificat.i.on ui tne ueci"'ion o thb vourt of

Appeal in Joudctll v le hooti wnG'1:., t~b . . o~rt &Qopt~~ tue ;ie ..

vt11ers .. ill be provoked . ,1 i llictms J . in tua L ca;;;,e "''""iu : ( (8)

11
1.'ue..,_ C&vet: , .. hicu .. ere not orout)1t to "he otice

tllink, au tnori ties .i'or th1;; propusi tiun , 11ch

vr ..,t;CO.,e an nla,,ful a...,s<;;10Ll:> if .. nc.:..t purpvse

eithr::r -.a._, , o.t

...
L.lme t .. e D..:>vel,lul.t' vr

u.fl,SlW<-Ar b v8Cc::l1l8, O.,e, Un'-'-ble t.0 ..,8 .... ar.1.1.t.::d out

.,itncut ca...,o,1able f0 .... 1· ~naL .i. .. wu la ~·ebu.lt .1.n ....

..,1. .Jc:l-:h of the peact.. '

r9) on Te Ou i's ctr est

::,a.ld :

11
••••• it ,.a~ Wlue ... ecaUot .i.t pr ... Vt;;llL.ed the per..,istence

by 1.imself ..... nd his ollowers in c unduct .. hic11 •. ould

al ost lne itably :.ave led Lu .... is u 1J.:.t 1c •. hoae

 extent ano vio1ence it .. ould be difficul t t o

eo t ima. te 11

and :.e a..,cd his on L,e fa t thu.t : (,-,0)

11
•uts de the, fear caused n isto. . y and

cna a~te.1. of . . e Kooti na uis et 0.s anJ the

Umbtr~ ~nd 0p~talion 0f nis follOWt r u , ~nere

.. u..y 1c1.ve Le '-'n uire fv . . revenge , n~~ural ' ut

.illeg,..tl , ere"" te iu the mi.ids 01 roany . "

· e1 inbl.Y in conf lie t with '.::'e Kooti I s 1...<.A .... e .i ....

:!::'iL- ey ' s ( ol) Vi€,/ tu"""t am etLg wh.:. ch .ib .,.01., u1..he.1.wise

ille 0 a.l l,08o l ot uec O.. ,t:: , .ll ui.1la. f"ul a..,S1.,J, '.,ly ..,Olely ueCaU..c,e .1. t

will e~cite i lent ~n un a~1ul opio .... ~tion -Ju le~d ihui E tly

1..0 ~ .., 8ct1.,h of nc peu.Ct ( t e 111 p '.,lem" o cauuatiun tneu

ct , el..,ps} no,, i.:.; Vel, if '.:' · Kouti' s case were followed it would

be the initial meeting :hich would create tne unlawful

assembly - accordingly "mens rea" is not even to be considered

on this interpr etation of that Cabe). ~eatty v .Qi.llbanks is

larbely a reiteration of :hat Dicey said above. In this case

Feild J. said:

"l'l'hat has happened here is that an unlawful organis-

ation 11as assu 1ne d to itself t e ri c,ht to pr event

the efendent an u ctl ers from la.:~'ull;, asbeu.Lbling

tobethe and thb finctinb of the justices 'that the

defendents vere 0 uilty of be in~ mem Lers of an

unlawful assembly' amounts to this, t nat a man

may be convicted of doing a lahful act if he k no ts

tha t his Joing it may cau..,e anoth er to do ~n

~nla wfu l act. There is no authority fa such a

proposition" (82)

T i s ,nay be compa ed tu trie counter statement by

:Jilliam s J. in Te Kooti' s case viz:

 41 •

II
..... lthis) is pusuing th e doctrine of indivi dual ism

..... to an irrati onal extent. " ( 83)

In Go odall v Te Ko oti Richmond J. ( 84) thouDht the

decision of Beatty v Jill ba.nks ~i~ht be inconsistent with the

draft clause of the Criminal Code (i. e . s.86 (l)(b)), ~u t uoth

!lt:; and ,iilli"'"ms J. were content to d1stln1::,uish thc.,1.1:, case.

Denni ston J. ci tinb the Irish case of 0 1 Kelly v ~arvey (85)

r e1:,ru ded ::.eatty a::. ·.. ron 6 ly decided .

~Iowever, it is su'..,uutted t..hat Jooaa.Ll v Tu...K,o_q_t1:, is

reconci eable with Beat ty v "illbanks becauoe s . 86 (l)(b)

contc1.1nb ti1e p .1. aoe "needlessly a1.d n tn0u.1, reaoonable caube 11 •

Thib prupos1tion is adequately sum~ed up by thib statement of

1dlliams J . in 3ooctall v ... e Koo Li : ( bo)

'Of courot tnurt;; ... v..y t.Je caseb in wni1.,h l:.11"' uoJ ec t

to 'ue (;,ffe1.,t1;;:d was of cl chara1.,ter to .. ,ake .1.to

Cc.,1..1. ryinb out p,;. amount e,VE.n to tnu au ty of p e-

ersistence in lt ould not

t i u ue .,er ,1ed 'nee 'le..:,.., a.nS.:. iLnuu t r eu;:;.o.1able

(cause)'.

cas€s .1.n .. hlch t.1 1;ar1·yiile, out 0.1. tllis principle

,1ay s..,t..:1 tv le . . . 1.1 tv a1·ds.• ~p .... nu. .Lntt-1 0rence with

oovivu::, tna.t t11c. otrE.Ja 01 puLlic a.u t 10ri ty

.. ould 'ue uire<.;ted to ...,Up_t-1reosin 0 ::,uvh obstruction"

Frurn thls it can oe arbued tHa~ t!le defendents in ... eatty v

1...ri.Llb.... nks were not ound gu.Llc.J vf ueing r:,emi.; r vl --1.n

unla,ful ssem'..,ly uecau~~ it cou d not e tiaid tuat o~ner~

1.ad ;;;en p ov ohea " neeules-,ly an1..< withou t re sonable caube" .

11.loO adoptln 0 thio aq,;UI, €11 t i ~ would Oe Ge.I.iv. tii._. t in ..rOOaall

v 1'8 J\.Oot.i tht;;r(;; co-1ld ne er 'ue a reasonable occa...,ion wht,n a

~oief 1~, tne rep~Laticn uf .1.e Koot\ should incur a risk of

cl ~reach of the ~ueen's peace Dy visiL1ng hi& relaLives with

 42.

a train of three hundred men.

There are other ways that Goodall v Te Kooti and

Beatty v Gillbanks have been reconciled. Brownlie (87) says:

"The decision'Sturn partly on distinctions of fact

and partly on the distinction of principle between

decisions in which the presumption of intending

natural consequences of acts is applied as one
of law and decisions in which it is regarded more
properly as a rebuttable presumption of fact."

That Beatty v Gillbanks can be distin~uished from Te Koo~s

case on the facts is clear. Richmond J. in the latter case

said:

"But it is unnecessary to the present purpose to

question tne authority of '"'eatty v 'hllbanks.

The attempted parallel between this Laori

asseml.lage .... nc. ti1e .. alvation 11.rmy verges on t.ne

ridiculous. It is absu . . d to compct e li1eir case

with tne present. Tht: leadt:r of t,e : aori

•
arty migHt twenty yeart, a 6 o have been truly des-
:;:e uad

the sc1.me 1..im.., :.e ;:, intcmporatt. ir, H..1....:, :.auit.:. - a

l .aor1. propnet <J.11 a. urun k en ont: t o ..,ooc;' "

. (be)

AnOt.~.er lileanu 0.1. oh0\1in 0 thu t Beatty V JlllDi:.lnkS

is d c.ecision wnicn i~ .still 'alive anc ,,._i1.,Ki1.g (.J...e. re-

Joneo (o9)) is ".,;j " cau..:,ac.ion " .

11 i. eleme:.i t of causa L.io,1 tht:.r . . ( 1.. e. Duncan

jud58meut ~nu it is a e abund-ntly clea~ lhat

 Lf-.) .

hru . Duncan was .ela to uc....Vc 'caus d' the d i o0rde.c on

Lht occa...,ion or Ler previous meetitlg '-'n was

expected to ' cause ' disoru.er aLain if ohe wer e

':.'11 re .a.::; c:.1.uuv1.:; all , no ..;:,U 0 t,e .... ti on hat'""ve.1. in tue Ccu,e tnat

t11e L,iso1 der ~·ould l,a.v e ueen Cci.U oed by opp on en t.s 01 ,ier..., u.Ilu.

it is ~lea1 bia tne u.iv ergt.:nc e "'..,et1,ecn eatty a.nd TJUncan' 6

~a.s~ th1ch Lo r a i ew rt iound o OVbr nhelmin1:, lay qui t e ds

mu.eh in this e cu li .... rit· unJ the ,.inJ.in 0 tl1 ..... i:. hrs . Du .ea.. ,as

• ot unwl lin lha th~ d1"'0raer anould ~nciue , as ~n tae circum-

•
o tc..nc e l,hc:1. t tne charge "'e;w.nst her wa..., o ,.e of -..:1"" tur. ing t 1e

P~-Ce nd. o of nului t n unlaw:ul assem~l . rten~e tne

'1U~S ~iOH to e asn.ed ,Jh~,l (. eCl ine, .. Ht: uHer u.!l a::.,s'-Juul;'y .. as

nlawful in c:1. ...,ituat ion like that enu~erat din s . 80 ( 1) ( ~) ,

una&.1. tne 1; um ... on la,, was ·.. helLer :-ne 0rso /..., :.au "cau::.1;;;0 11 "Lhc

efre~t"" 1 roduced uy tn\; int1.:;rVtning a.cts 01 l,H1.:; w1on 6 ~oer . I

suuhil, , thc.1.efore , tnu.t .ad tu~ la. in ~n lan i 1682 "'..,e~n ...,uc h

~s to allo~~ tht- defende11 ts in uea t Ly' s cc.se to ue 1.;ha,. ged .,i tn

obst uc l,1,. 0 tut: police a ... in Duucan v v o.oes , Field j. a.nu vave

J . woul a e ounct that the pulice Hao operated on a liar ty 1h o

•
cuu d n01:. re.;.oOnacly uave Deen eApectea to 'cause' a oreach o f

tne peace .;.Il~ so naQ a~ted unla1 fu.Lly .

Accordingly , LJeatty v ~i llbanks la ecicion .,nidl

sl,i 1 lies. It , s 1ot .Ki.L.L d LJJ tne ui·afti .g 01 b . uo ( 1) ( t>)

(eit r uefore or a.1.te1 tn~ 19t.) ~menament ) as seen uy l,he

discu1:,siun on rrneedleosly and without .1.ev1.so1able caus&' and it

L... 1.econcile tle 1it.1 co,..u,on la., ca .... es .

I'he di...c-~Us...,iOil no., OCUcS8B O my beC011Q .l!rOpOvi tion

on th.1s p ..... rt of ti1e amenum nt vi:.c, . ~111.., .J..av a.., it exL,ts a t

present renuer s t11e ef.1.ect uf t11e pro .1.i:;o, c;.S a 11

Sd.feg ard'

( of tnc exercise uf 'saying, or doin g anythint:; l,hC).t .1e ..:..s

la. .. fullJ ntitlt.;.d to do r ScAY" as not, ein 0 ""n ''unla ·ful

CloSGl l.Y ' ) l,Q Le en i ·el neoulous . 1.he law at present u.oes
 +4 •

• oL ~ecounisc the ri 0 ~t uf pe ceful and or~erlJ demonstraLiun

~d it imposes ciO many rbbtr1c~1ond vn ouch uemonstrations .

Tne re is ve1y litt.le an individual iti larfully &ntitle to do

in 0 roup oi1,ua1:..ions, pu suine:, a e,or.Hnon })Urpose viz. a
C.emonst.r . . . tion.

notn statute an co,nmun la .. restrict almust complete_y

the mentioneu grou~ oituation ubove such ab wo~ld constitute

. . . n uula .1ul a.socm..,l i not for tue .t-'roviso) . S.170 01 the
~unicipal uorporaLions I et 1954 vestb prop~rty in puulic

streeto in the corporatiun 01 ooroubh uaving JUiibdictioh in

•
tnc area in ~hich the streets are bivuated. 'C'naer t!le s""me
r1.ct, und"r s • .)8G the corpvr61.t1un etc . .... as \,ide po ers to ,.. ru..e

y-lca ,s concernin 6 t.se 01' and c ,nauct on public ;:;t eets au<l

oy s.1 J'J of t.ia.t ... et ce,. tv.i,1 ofiericc& are <..,l'ectteu in re.lu.tion

1,0 oosl,ructl(Hlci upun unt.l 1L..,Ub~ uf t>UL-lic .:;t1·ebts. .72 of

tHt: Tran:por~ :,et 19o~ lsu c..l.Uthvrises local "'u horities to r,cike

uy-laws 1ulatin 6 o the re 0 ulation of tra tic o, str~et~ :itain

·.ere .. e thus see uo.. he indi idual can ue
ebtl'lC l,t..G iu .SU n bruup ...,i tu..._ 1,iuns c..l.b d auns ..,r...._1,.J..un0 ,, e ely uy

•
tn~ local bo~y's aruitra~y powers. Tnere ar~ s i l l even
lurLher reotrlction~ on this a,d must stem fro~ tha Police

01fenceb ~et 1927 an the co~mon lan . (91)

action J (eee) 01 the lolic~ f1ences act createb

II 11 i 1..hOU v '
..i.Q. 1, ul au tuo.L i ..,y ur .ce&soi.aole e.'i.1,,,Ub~

oLstructs uny footpd.Lh , foc.:,tw . . . y, or car.Liage .. ay.:'

lhis is ed.lly d. codificaLion 01 ~ne uo I o~ Lau doctrine of

tllt r .l.l,u t to 'paou and ~ t..p ... ..,s 11 011 a uot .. ay ... or tn0 p pcse

uf rc,.V t.l. ( 9d

p~Liic ...,t eet(.hich ls wher~ C4 aemonstiation i.., 1ost li ely

tu occ,.u·) for pur~ooe~ otner tnan ~or !'aosin ... n .L e_pa..,sing
 '5 .

tnL. ri1:,uts 0.1. t,.ie 01,uint, -uthority (i.e. Lnc: local body or
cc1 porut1on) . 11 memberb uf a ~emons1,ra~ion on d ~u~lic
!lre.l\
Ltre~tAa1~ested iur ~respass, ~ecausu tuey un•t h~ e the
corscnt of tne local 6 ov1:-r11in bocty tnt:;y may oe arrested
01 'obstruction·' unuer o.j (eee). An i~lusLratlon of ,o~
"wio.e'' tuis offtDGe is , li:, .::.e&n in tu.e judgement of 0ir
uamuel Jriflith v.J. in 1.dy,,OOO V hUr.l.l.Ord (;1_;) ,,!lee :.e ~diu:

"It wau co,.t nded y t:.e <.Ap_t->ellents that it w""s

~pace ~·~ilaulo p~rso. s tv ~au& anG repc..tsu ,

•
101

ut tnc..tt ~t must also· e uhuwn ~nut t~e puLlic

cuuld not .,ithout suustan1,ial inco,1v0n.Lence 6 0 Glround

Lne vbsLruct10n , un uU, uwku ~uat Ud the

w~n migut ~esire . In my vpiniou the: ter111

ACt ••••• iuGlLlOBu an~ COllLlllUOUu ~uyuical

occupati n uf u portion a utr._e1., .. 1 icn

:..pparently C.iminiull8u l.!18 upu.Ce _,_vailaole for

• pd.using or epascing le.::.s commodious , wnetn er

any JJerso 1 ii:; in fact a..'.'fected or not . '

Tllis l c:auuning ,a~, adopteC. i •••LJ• UJ t, e uUpr_,me

~ourt i1 StL.wa t v Polic1:, (94). In that case the court
found such an obstruction by a 1outh ~ho sat ~0 ainst tue ~all

o a uuilding 1,i1,n 1;.is lebs out over po.rt of t11e footpc..ttu .

1l,~ou 0 h tnere ~ad .::.till one ei~ht feet uf footpath (in

widtn) still availa~le for use oy ~ue pu lie, h- L.Ourt neld

tn~t uy acting as ne aid tne Jefenae t u.ppreci~bly diminished

C11e spa<.;e cAVaila1le for paosin and rep usin,, •

f'urr,.ue11nore , it is t,l1:,a1 tn t:
 'Ac
' ii
t.
::
:.e "
' ,o
'e .
, a1
inon l .
,ri
. t1
.bu . .
.
.u 1a .
eu fp
s& o ul
bic

t
bre
etsl
.acof
ninJt
e otni
e s
rue 10 ~~ pr
ups
ue

fl
o ei
bim
t i
ct "u
! ia
.c ge.
:
:.11d
. .o
J eb nte
u t
xendt e
oth.

ld
.Lo
' inbo t
f Idai
tc e
' rne.
t. s
ing t1
, 0a r
einso
g r

em
d os
nta
rti
.on.
c' (.
,
,.1)

:heau.
1t
.lr
oi,
1is~
e ec
r lvr
al i a u
nf ft
. o
.1 ue iu

n
tc.
.
:,an s
. ta.1
t e
. i
, 111ee .,g un .
. ..
..1
L -
.0 n,.
a: i
, 'wt tth
tou e1. s
,0n.,n
. t0
f

.1
t o
elc.
c1 .u1
. a r
,11o i
ite)i
s s
sitera
l n 1u
. r
ne'
"-sona s
b...e ueo .
f t.e

l
l
.Lt
.: ,
,.L1ay .
'- wnil
c e
l n1,
.d"t
" oo c
e founi e
.bfr
o -
'
e"n s
yueo ay
ighw
f a ;1

e
uc e
ow r
sp af
im c
aieul
n f
awu.
l o L
A r
o ly
dG t
ce inn
lredv

•
l
ilrS
c i
ci: (~a
a )

.
i
':
'.
,
.. i
. i
g.tt s
ou '
-
ea tu.
:l r
cot
i et
e 01 b ft
.ny u l
.Le

pu cp
oi .
.:
: eb t
rpo8 o,
..
h.
i
..ni
c t.s u
.
. e i
dct
ae ss
da ucn

sa p
i ul
bi i
crbt
h,nta
o i
. pivt
aeon •
e•••(
• an)
d

a
sI n
u e"
v l
'.
i·au
e .yini
dct
ae,l
d u
- _
e~e jsnosuch

Li
hnb .....s cJ. p
r.ivt
a i
ergti
a nan i
y., a
il u
u lto

ak
,u .
.
e.iev
s ;
.
fc.n
. J~ul
bi r
c tetf
e o l
r,od .
i g pu...1ic

tee i
u ns•
g •
•• t
•ims
ut "condut
cedu,de .He
.
...• 1

,
,.ny.
a .
. e
.nu s .
.1 e
iou r
· s.1
t c
.itios.
n i
.h ,u
c1 c im
r ps
oed

•
bt
y eG
en s
est
i fa
yo vi
odinhit
nef
ree
r c
n i
ewtn

t~
o e
. i
r pu l e
ed ) .J.t ,
.1_nu
b ••••• (c ,,s
u er
tb -
e

,
. L
emJle
e •
a•••t
• ht o
ialt
l u"pt
ui
l s
cuesto

,i
1c1pul
~i t
c&ra
et r.
s ~ ..
. i
..
. a
eg e
l~d i
dct
ae,tnt
a

ff
o c
r;cu t
.r sr .
i1;
.t-
e..
. !
l°s
""ag
' i
e. t
sth: ,Jtim
o pr
otat
n."

e
d n~ ss
, a& a a
e a
ttcw
i e
etinb o i
s G npul
ui l
cpae
cs

t
i a
c nntb
o a
eui thta
a nini
dviduli
a set
nt
ile~t aw
ol fl
uly

oo antn
y n.
g . ev
,ow r
e,· l
romI etou1neCr
opr
oai
to a
n v .wry(9
r t)

tnr
e a
ew .de
s1
. :
n.i
.ft
i: a
d~ common J_ i
\1 r.
t.h
. " H ta
. "r
poe
csi
son s
"i

r
p af
im c
ai .
e.1 fu
aw lintu's
" es
n c1
eth . i
t~ r te
0 h ,
.,
, t
i~.
.;t
: r
opoe
ced

on pul
bi.s
c r
tet
e r
si1 a pue
csi
so.
n t
LJU ti
h sn
svOe tb
o ive

.Lw ind
t ..:
i i
r(u
: li
a na 0 rou i1
pb .
.u i
ato cn s
ninu .:opu o eg
f .L le
a -
n

..
1l
t e
em ta
n er
s h bn
i .o
t o c
ch "p~o
l ~u e .
s&..
J sn
.On i tc
o .n
.1
 It must "ue <-.11.8rci..., \;;d 11
rea.;onauly" ( i . c . there
Just ~e no unra-bonable obstruction uf the puLlic ribh~ of

pabsage) . AS ~o "hdt consvivutes re"sonableness nere is

rot cle~~ Qn is once a ain Optn-~nded .
0 ~ioson J . in Lo~uen s
v heayen2y (98) saict :

"Anli thl., red....,Ollaulencss ui ~h\., us0, .l....) vO ...,e

ueLer ~ined by CGnuidering such factorb GS the

occaaion , ~h du1~ ion u! tuc use , tne place and

tnE:: lluur ••••• 1

•
ne conuuct of tnusc: •rue t kc part in he prucession

~wall r_levant , -nd lt _aJ also consvitutc an Utlre~sona~le

v ctruct..i.on by tne era,. vr spectators it attra"t.::, .

i y con1...lUSLOn is "hav tn8 a"ditio of tuis ~ro iLO

to the section serves no "legal II purpose wh.:.. t"' V8J.' , ~n ei "aer

o~ the instances uho\n above. rlu t i~ can ue ar~ued tna it

~uifils a si 6 ni11cant 1
politi1...al' purpose in ~n"· ~t cihOwe a

bpeGi1ically c-0 concerned people thaw tue Labour ,overnmatlt

was not prepared to ti 5 hten up on law ~n or er at vhe expense

of "d~mocrati.;" frt;E.;OO ,s . It is this latter function whiGh

• tht; pr OlilbO uOlely .serv S und no OLaer .

It LS esta.blisned tram tne prect;ain 0 cHSG USblOn tna1:.

the o 1ence OJ. unla. .. 1ul a::;::;em"..,lJ" wao not ch..:i.nt,ed in 11,b

:;_e 0 al e feet uy tiic. i<:17_;, am1;.;11a .. ent. vf cour e, i .i,ay be

cobe.itly ... rguea thc...t Dr . Finla. did a1...hit:ve 011e 01' nis ouJects

i11 tue umenuiuent vi,., . _.. Glc..1.ri.1.1cation 01 ne lant,!;Ud.ge used in

the section (e • b • th& raplacemei1t of tue .. ura "tumuLtuously ' ).

DU t tnis il i i:.,;el oeci little tu 1ncr1:;;a..,e or 'strene,LHen"

 pl
oieJ
c ,
?O,rn
e u c
r .Ln e ddo f
s it e
e fc
ettn r
epo,
uie
s d iH1p ed
rov

c
l.
i.a
. r
n ouer. Ienc .
e ill.Y .,onl
cui
sonl , tn .
a th.
i en
sam en
am t

,
..
a -1
,a 1on
. -v
. tt
cn l
il( r
;_ poi
vve
. .
u no 1 c:W au.Lti
d o ,0 t
n1 hepl
oie
c 1ua's
n

a .
.cmou...y A sug6s
ete e
du 1r
oe t
,iool
n a
yvlu ab p
ew l
ot
iia
cl

e
..... vr r
y iwpot:
c .n
:1 )O
t} ti
ln slOW<
: -vrr
e i
aoedoy t.
.e

1
nd..,.,e
am- 1tc.nd OJ .u
.1 r•'
r
.il
na'
y .
s.,
.tt1
a en
;m t i
sun .t
. .
,ie:
.

.
'Anadi
di
tona f
l s~e~u a~
....~ scot
nainedinth r
ep s
oio

.h1
. c :
:
r1 ; i1 tn
.Yu t
,a eu
u on l
ialo
l t
ece ed t
ew r
opo.oke

•
t
ohrp
e r
esusn
n e
e l
des
sl i
y und ,tnotr
u a
e ~onal
be

au
c .
.,
. ih
ei el lo
~- in r s....yL10 s
5 o e
omti
hn5tht:
a e
.

sl
i aw1l
ulyet
nt
iledt t
oc rb
oo a.
y Ti
hs

spc
eii
fcl
al c
ya:. lE
.no, e
:dgsth i
er0n fp
tv "
e'ef
c l
u

an r
uodel
1 em
yd os
nta
rtio.
n' (99
' )

ep
Th i
on a
tr e
iG a
dc am
n e r edinthefo fa
rm o

qus
etio:
n

st
I h f
eofeneo
c ful
n f
awu s
la3eml
b si
ya ti ow
sn

cot
nainedinth r
eC e
ims Am en
endm c
t At 1973

"undemor
cai
tc"an f
di s,s
o hol
u t
di er
b epa
eled

s s
o~ntt
o ocos
ntt
iue~u
t i
ch a dsps
oii
ton?

i
Frt
sl,i
y ti e
sncs
esr
aytodi
s ;
eu:
:, ti
s ;a sinvl
oved

l1
i t e1rn 11d
et t;m
; or
cai
tc.
" I .l
ncommon p~. aneL
c i
a e
st e
rmm s
an

tht
ctth inii
d duls
a hol
u a
dh et
v n i
e11rbIt
1 ff
"o l
r,espe
e.c,
h

i
wh sn
ch i tt
o e&
ob c
n lea oy ~~e
um e st .1
r.LCt ,vw
s<A.:, l
.on iir
e t
e anl

.m
l i
:1 e .,ayot
pa,i
k .
l.:
; i
, e
svi.ss
i hol
u a
e a_p
db .l
,entu
o l
n f
yo

e
uin~ vi~
o a1
e t
1uoif
u a
e fs
ru a
tt e
er r
pia
sl~~ l
aso~hol
u e
db

cL..l
a_p
~ i
eof dss 1
.
~.in i
ato•
n

:
. eb
'110 d i
..
. :
.1 i
abi
l:
i.y ff
o e
r :
:
e.,.
.
p ;
,Lc sc
ni e
la, ...s e
r i
vne
c d

:
uy ::
:r a
anesJ
i .inu1utne i
4 v ~ai1r
oni )w
a (1uO hr
eei es
nh a
t-ed
c :
 49 .

••••• fre e c..om to think a.o yuu will and speak a.,

you -::hink Gl1'8 mea.nv indL::,p ... nvu.ule to tne <li3COVery

vlla t .,i Gu OU l, 1I't:8

opveCH ai1v. aua rn..,l.Y UiSCUoolOn ,.ould bt: futile;

che g:r eate..,t menc:1.ce dJ freeuorn i::; an 1.n&rt people . 11

½ino ... itie..., ust .1.t:ly un t, e utret:1...b <And ~ark., 01

<,lH.:.L ities in 01dt:r LO c..iost:minate t, eir ie~s effecti ' ely

an~ un a .. .1.ul ausvmuly is <All off en e v llich .. ake..., this "'-V..:;llU8

of uissemina1...ion "risky' w 1ere sen.sitive issues .... re involvea .

-'!l pro iuo ua...., no ef ec.; t "f .iin . u.iisL t1, this ri...,k or of

en11c..ncing tn.is avenue a..., an efrective and lawful meanv 01

publicity ur uioGtmi,ation uf opiniono .

Gne ma.1 e satisfied ttlat the pol"c" i l l De -ir -nd

frruiK c.tnd not I11c.1.nu1acture tni;:;i' eviuence , uUl, t,ue use of thE.-

of1e1h,t alot:..,;, fundam ... ntu.l qu1:..sl,ions u.oouc. ...,t.,;1t"' or e:;..ecutive

o 1t o over lHdivia.ui;..o.l autions. Like :

's .3p uf tn Iolic~ Offe ceo act 1927 it can ue ~sed as

a ·1ca'cch-all ii 1:..h0u t ~ue neeu to prui.i e that the

.t,Jtr son cha.re;ed 11a::., w8Hu.Ved 11

in a .1. iotous , Of fen...,i\ e ,

thre~tuning , insultin~ or uiourderly manner , or us&s

"'ny i.;hrualenini:;, --i.bUulVe U.1. .i..n.,ul illf5 ~ 0 Uu

11 • .i: erhnps

one illay feel ~at it is •njust tna~ 1

putential 01~-

orde.;.~11 onuul<l ea. ... r y a ieavier h,a:ximum .t-1enal ly than

"actual uicOl'uer 11 • i'11-., vfft::nGe of unlai. ul

a:.;,oem"'.,lJ ua..., ueen called dan 0 e1ou.s ..... lso in tne

allega.tivn taut "at vr1;:;s1:;,nt .ore l"ressure av the

...;cene vf an unlaw.;.ul aotiem'...,ly way i,a.n:e -I1Y .. ,1;:;muvr

o~ tn..., public an un·.. itting of c;n ..... er .. netw,H ti1routsn

cu ... ioi:;i.,y 0.1· chanc.e' . (101)

tue purpos & ... or ~he ... eteation ,1 the u.1. tnce . :.,nla.,. ful
acib moly provideb ~ med.ns by ,hich ~erious mob Lehciviour
can ~e aver~cC in itci initial ~tages.

a me ns uy which the .i:)Olice .... re ablE;; to c.J.r1 eot . . . p .... roon L.~iey

::now lJ.c:1....., co .1mi t teC. oume injury vr uamaged property but , ould nut
Le able to prove a vpecific offence or act by that fear (e.g.

such as assault, wilful damage etc.) Also it mi 6 1t Le argued

that such behaviour is so dangerous that stron 5 deterrent measures

d.imed "specifically" at 1:;uch ue.uav1our <-<Ie necessa y. On this

lci.tLer point, it can be argued t11<..... t t'.e U1,ilita ic-.n uu.lance
Let~ean level of en1orcement and level of punishment for a

0 iven wnount at deterr,.mce .Lti upset during large scale dis-

t~rbances Whbn polico rebo rces d.Ie overtaAea anu thGl.t necesbary

c..a.djuob ent in the deterrence equation are best ~aae plainly and

clearlJ uy use of & S1JcCi1ic serious offtnce ra~ni;;;r tuan by

m~ ing . . onC.uct cturin~ an unlarlful assa~tly a circumstance of

ag~ra\aLion !O! O!fenceo such ~b c.J.bsault or aiborderly behaviour.

hus unlawiul d.Ssemuly should be used as an orience

uf "labt re...,ort' ana tnis ls en._ ap:i,,roach 1-h\c. courts should

aUOpt in relaviOn O l(, • .. prOvlbO ouch c>.~ th""t in the 1973

.... 1 endment only sa.ie 6 uards un e1in1:;C. theo1 e(,ical r·itnto that

8.hio ill the 11,iild Vf t 18 iL ea.list J.'a v!i0l tnca.fi .J..Il fat.., t • Bu(, to

the eAtent o wh1c J. it rein10rc~v ueliet in an~ leoitimlcieS

(,hose ~ignto it uOes not ~erve a use ul func~~on.

 1) ( 189G) 9 n . LJ . L . ... , . 26 , .Jb

(c) Larch .:>O~h 19 7 3 ·1 r,;v1::uing Fost ' , 11

( 3) l~~L Labour Elect.ion hanifebto , G

( '+) l'' e rua y 28 1 19 :> 11 11,ven1ng r oat 11 , 2

Feoru · 28th 197:> II II

2

( 6) Lam bo..I d , .8H·euarcha ( 1.?':11 ) , 182-184

19 .JO , Vol. I V, 1...,5

/

(9) ::awldns , 1 l ~a...., of the Crown' (7t.h ea . ){_1}95) 1, (hu5 s . 9

""'· ,.
(10) 11olasworch , ._actury uf tae ..r:,n1;lish Law ,~V ol V, 198-11)9

(11) Husseli , 1~u 9 sell on Crim~, ; ol. I , 2Jb

(le.) .t1ro,,n.1.ie , :'11e Law ~elatin tu ruolic Gruer , ./r-:>8

(1.J) I:{ v Jincent (lb..19) b C :X , 91, 17.::; ~ . ... • ?55

(1:;) ,:>mith -~ ' ogan , 1,,riminal Law (jrd ed . ) , b lO , DUt see

u . P • • v ~amara (19 · ~) l A 11 ~ . tt . l~'+~ •

(lo) It i.., su'm.1.t.,ed ~a t ·'treach of tne peace ' an u 'ust-

of vio.Lenc II
in .::, • 5 o the Crimes rtmendmen t .-tc t

19'!3 c.lr e ::;ynonomouu .

( 11) ibid , 15)

(18) (108 8) 16 v. v . C. , L~20; 4 ;:_o ,Otb 8

vol . c.. , ..)Ou

(20) (lbu~) 9 ~. n. ~., 508

( 21) ioid , per· 11illiami:; J ., 51

 :>2 .

c~2) ibid, per LJ8n1iston J ., 58-;9

( 2_;) Adam.:,, ~riminal Law anu. rrac tie, t. in ~vr .l1::: ..... la.ga, )

(en · ed.), 21 6.

(24) ibid, 40

(2J) JnLeportea de cloion 01 1 acarLnur J. in Cnristchurch

Supre it: ~ourt 11.4.74

(26) unreported <leci~ion of ~ oper J. in the Chrib~charch

Jupreme Court 17.,2 . 74 .

iuia, )9

Kenn"y'.::, vUU.l,.bg OL the vl'lIDillci.,L Law ( l 9t.h eu..)

ec,.ited oy,.,, .,, • ...,. -::'urne1 , 413

()O) Dicey , }he Law o1 th~ Constitution , (10Lh ed .) 2rl

(1931) ., . .. . 1<. ' tG4 . n case in pint ne1e ,hie,h is

(10.1)
also i lUbvla.~iV is~ v Lebeoo:1/(19 /0) Canadi~n
Criminal vBbes 115.

(33) i id, lv7

(j<+) unr ~portt:d . . . irect.i.o 1 to the .Ju1y by .:aolam J . in

c ie .. el2.ington , uprtme Court o . :;.73.

(:;6) nro,nlie , i ict, ~9

lJnlo.w . ,."UJ. liobt:;uJ.,lY, 197.5, · .LJ.L.u., _:::02

OI}J..Y
p . 191 : 11
rJ er8 is no doubt t .. at two per...,o 1s/ Huy

..,e convicted u l'iut ng ,.11,1, utut.ro. 11

( 41) (19)1) _;7 Can aian Jriminal Cabes , 9c

(i.jc:) 1,nrc;;porte' -.:t::1.,L,io 1.,1'C 1 .. e 6 an J . 19 . c . 7_;, .... n the

.. elli n to. 0uµrL.me v ourt •

....,uprc;;we 1.,0~r~ of unana

(44) (19)5) 2 K. ~. 249

4.'.;)) Unr orteu oral ju 1:,ement uy ,~u.illic..m J . in t. e

velli.g~vn 0uprL.me GOUi ~ 21., . _;, . 74 at p . 2

( 4b) i ulu. , 12~ 8

( 4r/) i ~id, 1248

( L~o) ioid , t~7

4:1) (19_;,1):; D. LP'" 2:,7, 272

c,o) ibid 7)_;-7?6

( .> 1 ) .h v ./ar by an· woi '.in ( 1 9 31 ) :,;7 anac,.ian .;r .i.rn.i.nal

aves JU , '-} 1

( .:Jd :R v .dun t 1 .:3 tat :'r . • • ~ • 1 l1

( .J)) v :.u n t ( .:::iupr·a.)

(../)) v .::iprir1, ( ..:,U_t1ra'

(_;o) 1< • JincLut (.,,upra)

( _;7) vnreported rGb8l V8<1 deCl.SiOn Of - o .t' • 1' O!labhan ...., . , •

in the .,ellingtun .agis.,ra.te's Court 11 . 7 . 74

(_;8) ibid p.~

( )9) 19 ( j I ,4 L . • .J . 1

(tJU) lDJ.u , .,80

(ol) ibid , ..,et the;; jud 0 ement::, or ,.iddletun .: . A. and

he .ree J • ...:..•

Cuc) (19.><-) .>e ~anadian Criminal Cases 28.> !l\a ,

 vnla,,1ui. assemuly - ,\ Reauci e 9 s meat , 1974 ., . l . L • .

1<;,0 , ':11

(04) ibid

P9lice dllu luulic Disoruer, 19/4, • . ~.L.J. 10

(6b) .UliS lS ,,!ly Dr • Finlay 1.,hOU5nt of it

as 'olu fauhione language" when · e referre · to the

p11raue in t1~ 19/4 .. . LJ.L.J . at p.10.

o?) ~lexander, I ntro ~u ctiun tu~ . rreuct , roup

Isycnolo R/ ~nu anaiYbl 9 of Lnt ~ 6 0 (bont~na ed . 19CO)

( 08) ibid , u11

( G~) iuid

( 10) 'riminal aw iu ter J.Y 3'+8

(11) i id, 7

(/2)unreported judgement vf tht Court uf Appedl deliverea

by ooanouse 0 . 11.10.74. he vourt uccepted that

to ue "" .. il1ul pc...rtlcipctto . . in an unl.:... L u l a.c,semoly

.L8 11a. to ue ure tnu.n an i L,, opec ta vUl' 1,i"

KUO,leage vf t~e Cu~mon purpOSu anw assibtin~ l i l t .

(IJ) (l uv~) o ~.n . v. J~4

( /4) ibid, xJ"I

(17) Unrepor ea decioion ay aper J. in the 'nri stc urch

uupr~me ~ourt 17.lL.}4

( /u) io.,_d, .P • .)

( '! 1) ibid 914 J.1 . l . • <..I • 10 --·

(Iv) ioid 1J . o l of 8.EJUrt

( 19) iuid p. C~ I., report

(0u) ibld p . bl-Cc vi r1:;por t

( 01 ) 1::,upra

( 02) ibid p. ~14

Co.)) C1~6_;) 10 L.d. Ir . on appeal 1 1.1-. Ir . 10~

Co?) ibid, ~7

Cob) iuict, 4b

( 1 9 :,6 ) 1 'fL e ..L.J•

(90) Keir anu Lawson, Caseb i Consti tutional Law ( 5th ed.)

191, 194

(91) Only those 011enceo nhich can effect memberb 01 ~

11
pt;aCeJ.Ul' d--monsti a ... 1.on ,,ill 'ue a.i..:;cussed and not

such 01fences s &s~ault, diso1uerly conduc t Cs.)D

Polico Offence s Ac t 1927) which are necessa y to

~revent videapread violence to persons a nd pro~erty.

(92) Harrison v Tne Duke or ~u t l ana ( 181:13) 1 '<t',J.J' 142, 152

C9 j) ( 1 909) 7 1.., • L • , • 1j j

(94 ) (19G1) •.• .L.L • • , . G8C , GS 1.

(9.,)) •• a. ho o ctie , f:)Ubm i bsiom on -~ e form 01 tne 1 olic e Orfcn ce .s

(9u) (1 924) ~ .~. 1 7, 120

(9 7) (19c.2) 31 ...;.L •• -. 174 per 'Ii ggini:; und Isaacs J .u.

(':;lu) (19u.>) c I1·L.. h «1:,p or to 0c. , u'j

(99) su_pra

( 100)

( 101 )

ln requirinL proo1 or 0~ch ~lleged offender Jeing

"in olved 11 in tae a&s<.::muly r1owuver lebsen1:, the n'""nce

o <AU lH •• OC1.,n.., uJst 1der ueint, en.ie,_ hea.

) C,q. . .U NL AWFilL
- www;g:::;
A-sstMBL Y. .