Passenger Rail protester hopes precedent set for future climate change activism after charges dropped
26022025 photo DAVID UNWIN / THE POST
Restore Passenger Rail protestors appear in Wellington District Court. Defendant Thomas Brydone Taptiklis, 44.
Photo:
The Post/David Unwin
A protester agitating for climate change action feels no joy after the Crown abandoned the prosecution of more than 20 defendants, including his own, in the Wellington District Court.
The Crown confirmed on Tuesday that it would no longer pursue a retrial of three defendants on
charges of endangering transport
and that it would also drop a further six trials related to protests under the banner of Restore Passenger Rail in 2022 and 2023.
The jurors in the first trial couldn't reach an agreement on whether the protests carried an unreasonable risk to the public.
Now, the Crown said any future trials would face the same issue and it was not in the public interest to continue.
Protesters brought rush-hour traffic to a halt in Wellington when they staged sit downs and stuck their hands to the road, abseiled above Mount Victoria tunnel and hung banners from gantries above State Highway 1.
Some defendants were discharged without conviction, while others await sentencing on guilty pleas - however, most of the charges were dismissed.
The trial for Andrew Sutherland, Michael Apathy, Thomas Taptiklis, and Te Wehi Ratana began on 26 February.
All four faced charges of endangering transport, with a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.
After more than three days of deliberation, Sutherland was acquitted on 10 March - a day later, the jury was dismissed and a retrial ordered after jurors were unable to reach a verdict for the other three defendants.
The Crown has now abandoned the retrial and a further six trials for other defendants.
However, Thomas Taptikilis said it was far from a personal triumph.
"The climate is worse than ever. There's no going on with my life and being happy.
"I'm sad that it feels like we have to go to such lengths to try to get adequate action and we haven't remotely got [it] ... so, I can't say I feel any joy about this."
He said he hoped it set a precedent and that protesters would not face prosecution for future climate change activism.
Te Wehi Ratana said while the issue of climate change hadn't gone away, the result was a vindication.
"When the jury was given all the facts, and the evidence from our two expert scientists - who made it very clear what was going on - the jury were unable to convict us and say what we did was unreasonable.
"Because what we did was reasonable within the context of the climate crisis."
In a memorandum to the court, Crown prosecutors said it was clear that the jury became deadlocked on the issue of whether the risk each defendant took was unreasonable across three protests in 2022.
"Given the way the trial developed, and the issue on which the jury became deadlocked, the Crown does not consider a re-trial is in the public interest.
"Similarly, the remaining six prosecutions would have the same issue. The Crown does not consider that continuing with those prosecutions is in the public interest."
Four defendants had charges dismissed without conviction, while six pleaded guilty to lesser charges.
Sutherland and Taptiklis pleaded guilty to wilful damage charges and await sentencing.
Defendants whose charges were also dismissed include; Rachael Mary Andrews, Susan Melanie Boyde, James Louis Cockle, Carrillon Dawn Cowan, Jill Jackson, Timothy Richard Musson, Anne Margueretta Smith, John Wilson Tovey, Dominic James Grose, Alex Sidney Jacobsen, Jenniffer Mary Olsen, Alex Harry, Gregor Morgan, Kaile Quian, Caroline Rousseau Sheldon-Williams, Julian John Warmington, Jenny Whittington, Rosemary Anne Penwarden, Alexander Henry Cockle and Joanne Kathleen Sutherland.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
5 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Inside the Waitangi Tribunal's Mana Wāhine hearings
The Waitangi Tribunal's latest hearings delved into the historical and systemic marginalisation of Māori women – and the constitutional future their voices demand. As the cold embrace of Hine Takurua set upon Te Upoko-o-te-ika-a-Māui, the wharenui at Te Herenga Waka Marae was warmed by the testimony, challenge and reassertion for the Mana Wāhine claim. Last week, the Waitangi Tribunal held hearings for the Mana Wāhine Kaupapa Inquiry: a landmark claim addressing the Crown's ongoing failure to uphold the status, rights, and constitutional authority of wāhine Māori. Heard before judge Sarah Reeves and panel members Robyn Anderson, Kim Ngarimu, Linda Tuhiwai Smith and Ruakere Hond, the Mana Wāhine inquiry centres on the enduring impacts of colonisation, patriarchy and the Crown's exclusionary systems of power. From the appointment processes of state boards to the structure of commercial fisheries, the claim argues that wāhine Māori have been deliberately sidelined from decision-making, leadership and economic participation. Claimant representative Natalie Coates opened with a challenge to look inward as well as out: 'Acknowledging that the patriarchal ideas infiltrated our tikanga and how we conduct and order ourselves in our whānau, hapū and iwi is a necessary part of our healing journey as a people.' It was a confronting reminder that while colonisation imposed new systems, some damage manifested through the reshaping of tikanga. Legal academic Ani Mikaere was the first witness, opening proceedings with a clear articulation of what has been lost: 'Our creation stories and tikanga once upheld the mana of wāhine Māori, recognising them as leaders, protectors of whakapapa, powerful spiritual figures. Colonisation has rewritten those stories, often with misogyny, fear and racism layered over our own truths.' Across four days of presentations and cross-examination, a diverse group of lawyers, historians, researchers, kuia and claimants took the stand. The hearings wove together a narrative that was both historic and current, doctrinal and lived. The claim traces its lineage to one woman in particular – Mira Szászy. As the sole wahine commissioner on the Māori Fisheries Commission in 1990, her exclusion from subsequent appointments was a catalyst for Wai 381. Several witnesses described her as having 'grandparented' both the fisheries settlement and the Mana Wāhine claim. Ripeka Evans, an original claimant, told the tribunal: 'The opportunities for wāhine Māori weren't lost. They simply weren't presented.' Much of the testimony outlined how the Crown's systems are structurally incapable of recognising mana wāhine on their own terms. Tribunal veteran and claimant representative Annette Sykes framed the inquiry as 'a constitutional moment'. 'This is the first time the tribunal has been called to confront the Crown's breaches through the distinct and intersectional lens of wāhine Māori.' That lens includes land and resource alienation, gendered violence, the denial of political agency and systemic exclusion. According to historian Aroha Harris, the doctrine of discovery and the English common law model erased not just indigenous rights, but indigenous women. Tina Ngata highlighted the stark link between the two: 'The doctrine of discovery replaced our systems of sacredness with a hierarchy. The more white, and the more male you were, the more sacred. The further you were from that, the more disposable.' That disposability has consequences. Deputy dean for the faculty of business and economics at the University of Auckland Carla Houkamau presented research highlighting how contemporary state systems continue to harm Māori women, particularly in education, health and criminal justice. 'Our pain is more likely to be ignored. Our leadership is more likely to be invisible. Our participation, purposefully hidden.' But the hearings showed that wāhine Māori are not just participating – they are leading in the way. The final day was dedicated to testimony from the Māori Women's Welfare League, led by current president Hope Tupara. The league, with its ECOSOC status at the UN and more than 70 years of intergenerational organising, emerged as a central vehicle for mana wāhine. Former president Areta Koopu described the league as a whare: 'We are one family, one house. We stick together.' That unity was tested over decades of Crown interface. Tupara told the tribunal: 'They don't value our mātauranga. The Crown doesn't understand our way of thinking, because it doesn't operate that way.' Several former presidents outlined how Crown processes had repeatedly sidelined the league from major policy decisions. One spoke of the 'opportunity cost' of the Crown's insistence on engagement with newer pan-Māori bodies: 'Despite our leadership in communities, we were increasingly outside the consultation room.' A core focus of the next steps is remedies. Many witnesses called for changes to appointment structures, constitutional recognition of mana wāhine, and support for pathways rooted in whakapapa rather than CVs. Indigenous rights lawyer Dayle Takitimu urged the tribunal to consider the fundamental shift needed: 'Wāhine Māori have inherent mana and authority embedded into us. The Crown must confront the ways it has polluted or denied that truth – not just in history, but in policy today.' Barrister Natalie Coates reinforced that any future framework must move beyond individual fixes: 'We're talking about the wellbeing of wāhine Māori being inseparable from the communities from which we come from… It's not a zero sum struggle, it's a return to collective health and justice.' The claimants were also clear that this was not about slotting women into existing colonial frameworks. Rather, as Mikaere said, it is about restoring a reality that existed long before colonisation – one where mana was understood as shared, relational and grounded in whakapapa. 'It is only when women achieve mana recognition that the Māori people will rise up,' she said. Last week marked the first round of hearings in a long process. However, for many present at Te Herenga Waka, it was also a reclamation. In the words of former Māori Women's Welfare League president Druis Barrett: 'We were always doing the mahi. The question is when the Crown will finally see it.' The Wai 2700 hearings will continue later this year.
Otago Daily Times
6 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Dewar jailed over $113k theft
Former rogue cop John Dewar has been sent back to prison after a jury found him guilty of stealing $113,000 from a finance company of which he was the boss. It has been 18 years since Dewar was last jailed, for attempting to cover up rape allegations laid against police colleagues Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton. The trio were eventually cleared of raping Louise Nicholas, but Schollum and Shipton were convicted of raping a 20-year-old in Mount Maunganui in 1989. Dewar — a top officer in Rotorua when he left in 1999 — was jailed for four and a-half years, reduced from an initial six years — for the attempted cover-up. Yesterday, Dewar was back before Judge Noel Cocurullo in the Hamilton District Court for sentencing on three charges of theft by a person in a special relationship and three charges of obtaining by deception from a finance company he helped set up in 2015. Dewar was the brains, while his fellow shareholders provided the financial backing of the firm. The name of the company and its directors are permanently suppressed. A jury spent eight days hearing evidence last month relating to Dewar's offending between 2015 and 2019, when he stole about $113,000 to help pay off a personal loan, buy weed killer, a spray unit, a toastie machine maker and Hush Puppies shoes. Part of his defence was that he was never told not to act in the way he did. But the jury did not buy it and instead found him guilty. Crown solicitor Jacinda Hamilton said Dewar had "blatantly abused a position of trust and confidence by engaging in calculated and dishonest conduct that caused significant loss to a company with whom he was in a management position". Dewar had significant commercial experience but had "deliberately ignored his obligations of trust and confidence to the other directors and did so largely for his own financial gain". Ms Hamilton said it was a "classic illustration of the old adage a leopard doesn't change its spots". She said the Crown's estimated loss of $150,000 was conservative, as at trial, company directors had claimed it was more than $220,000. Ms Hamilton said there were no mitigating features of Dewar's offending despite his relinquishing his shareholding in the company, which had since been sold. She called for him to be jailed. Dewar defended himself at trial but had lawyer Louis Wilkins at his side offering advice when needed. Yesterday, Mr Wilkins did all the talking for Dewar and tried his best to keep him out of prison. He sought a lower starting point of 30 months' prison, then argued there were minimal aggravating features present in Dewar's offending, namely sophistication and the amount stolen. The judge noted a sense of sadness from several of the victims, who felt "somewhat betrayed" by his actions. "That there had been a solid friendship in many respects, they had been duped by your conduct." Judge Cocurullo took a starting point of three years' imprisonment and agreed to issue an uplift for his previous conviction. He then allowed him a 15% discount for offering up his shareholding as reparation, and a further 12% for medical issues before coming to an end jail term of 26 months. — Belinda Feek, Open Justice journalist
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Court martial for soldier accused of covertly filming women during sexual encounters
He admits taking the videos and images - but says the women consented, or he genuinely believed they were consenting at the time. The women reject this, saying they had no idea they were being recorded. Court martial proceedings began today for Smith at Burnham Military Camp before Judge Tom Gilbert. A court martial is a military court that tries members of the armed forces for violations of military law. It is a structured legal process, similar to a civilian court, and a decision on guilt or innocence is made by a panel of military members - three in Smith's case. If a defendant is found guilty, punishments can include fines, demotions, or imprisonment. Until today, the Herald could not publish details of the allegations against Smith. Between August and November 2020, he is accused of 'intentionally or recklessly' making an intimate visual recording of a woman. He is further charged with deliberately making intimate recordings of a second woman in November 2020 and December 2020. The alleged civil offences contravene the Armed Forces Disciplinary Act 1971. Judge Tom Gilbert. Photo / Pool The names of women have been suppressed. Both were in new relationships with Smith at the time of the alleged offending. Judge Gilbert also suppressed the specific details of the content of the videos and images. He said the Herald could only describe the content of the material and 'what was engaged in between parties' as 'intimate sexual activity'. Anything outside that description was prohibited. During the trial, the court will hear from both complainants via audio-visual link, and the panel deciding Smith's fate will be shown the intimate recordings in question. A number of other witnesses will also be called. Prosecutor Flight Lieutenant Hannah O'Byrne outlined the Crown case against Smith this morning. Corporal Manu Smith at the Court-martial proceedings. Photo / Pool She said the first woman met Smith in July 2020, and a sexual relationship 'progressed quickly'. During sexual activity at her Christchurch home she 'felt something was off' and when she looked up Smith was 'pointing his cellphone at her'. She told him to stop recording and delete the footage. 'She told him off for recording her and he played it off as a joke,' said O'Byrne. The woman assumed the footage was deleted - but Smith later sent it to her via Snapchat. Snapchat is social messaging app where messages are designed to disappear after being viewed or after a set time 'She told him off again, saying she told him not to do that and it wasn't ok,' said O'Byrne. The woman stopped seeing Smith and reported the matter to the police. The second woman was at Smith's defence house in Burnham when she was recorded. O'Byrne said that during sexual activity,, Smith took three photos of the woman. 'Without her consent - or even time to discuss what was happening. At the time,the she did not realise (photographs were being taken),' said the prosecutor. Prosecutor Flight Lieutenant Hannah O'Byrne. Photo / Pool Smith sent her the images on Snapchat, and she took screenshots. She told him to delete the photos, and he 'played it off as a joke'. Smith sent her the images on Snapchat, and she took screenshots. The pair engaged in sexual activity a few days later. 'She could not see what he was doing,' said O'Byrne. 'She did not realise she was being filmed.' Later on, she received a message from Smith on Snapchat. Given his messaging history, she decided to turn on screen recording before she opened it. It was the footage of her taken during sex. 'She asked if he had sent it to anyone else. He played it off as a joke,' said O'Byrne. The second woman reported the incident to police, handing over the screen recordings. Defence lawyer Matthew Hague. Photo / Pool The court heard that during their relationships with Smith, they had willingly and knowingly sent him explicit images and video, including naked photos. These were sent via Snapchat. Both vehemently reject Smith's explanation that they consented to him filming and or photographing them. The first woman began giving evidence before lunch. 'In the video, you can see me trying to swipe his phone away, telling him to put it away,' she said. She said there had been no discussion before sex about whether Smith could record. When she told him off, he was 'very blase'. 'He just said 'no, it's all good',' she recalled. She said she felt 'pretty gross'. 'My privacy had been invaded,' she said. In a brief opening address, Smith's lawyer, Matthew Hague, told the panel that his client denied all the charges. 'Let me be clear… what you've heard… is just allegations,' he said. 'It is not evidence. At present… the accused must be presumed innocent." The court martial is set to continue for at least three days. Anna Leask is a senior journalist who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 19 years with a particular focus on family and gender-based violence, child abuse, sexual violence, homicides, mental health and youth crime. She writes, hosts and produces the award-winning podcast A Moment In Crime, released monthly on
