Passenger Rail protester hopes precedent set for future climate change activism after charges dropped
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
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
Have Your Say On The Constitution Amendment Bill
The Chair of the Justice Committee is calling for public submissions on the Constitution Amendment Bill. The bill would amend the Constitution Act 1986 to allow Ministers of the Crown to remain in office until the completion of election processes and the appointment of new members of Parliament (MPs). This seeks to address situations where the return of the writ is delayed following a general election. Section 6 of the Constitution Act 1986 requires all Ministers of the Crown to be MPs. The Electoral Act 1993 provides that all MPs must vacate their office at the close of a general election polling day. The Constitution Act enables Ministers to continue to hold office for 28 days after ceasing to be an MP. This supports the continuity of executive government after an election and upholds the constitutional principle that the Governor-General must always have advisers. The bill would remove the 28-day rule and create a new one. A caretaker government would instead continue until the Electoral Commission declared the elected list candidates. This would effectively be when the election results had been finalised and new MPs had been appointed. Tell the Justice Committee what you think Make a submission on the bill by 1.00pm on Monday, 15 September 2025. Using Scoop for work? Scoop is free for personal use, but you'll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features. Join Pro Individual Find out more
RNZ News
17 hours ago
- RNZ News
David Tamihere's trial was 'fundamentally defective', lawyers argue
David Tamihere. Photo: RNZ The lawyer for convicted double murderer David Tamihere has described his trial as fundamentally defective, as the Supreme Court hears his appeal at the High Court in Auckland on Monday. Five Supreme Court judges are hearing arguments on whether the Court of Appeal in an earlier ruling was right to not quash his convictions. Tamihere has always denied killing Swedish tourists Urban Höglin (23) and Heidi Paakkonen (21), and served 20 years of a life sentence . His lawyers are appealing an earlier Court of Appeal ruling that found a miscarriage of justice, but upheld his convictions. In court on Monday morning, Tamihere's lawyer Murray Gibson outlined the three grounds of his submissions. "Multiple breaches of fair trial rights relating to the evidence of principal Crown witnesses, fundamental error in that the Crown no longer subscribes to the case advanced at trial or evidence on which the jury were invited to find the defendant culpable of the homicide," he said. "Thirdly, relates to the constitutional role of the jury." Monday morning was spent with Tamihere's lawyers giving a summary of their case, but deviated briefly to examine a map of the area Höglin and Paakkonen were said to have been exploring at the time of their disappearance in 1989 , and where crews searched for them afterward. Part of the Crown evidence in the original 1990 trial was false, coming from a prison informant later convicted of perjury. Gibson referenced this when addressing the panel of judges. Swedish tourists Urban Höglin (23) and Heidi Paakkonen (21). Photo: Supplied "The Crown retreated from the theory put forward at trial, and advanced two subsequent explanations. It drew on evidence and propositions that have since been discredited." This meant when the jury came to consider Tamihere's guilt, it did so within a discarded framework, Gibson said. "This must be, in council's submission, a sign of a fundamentally defective trial." Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann said it was extremely tempting to try and work out what happened to the tourists. "But that's certainly not the task of this court." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
19 hours ago
- NZ Herald
David Tamihere Supreme Court appeal: His last chance to clear murder convictions?
He admitted stealing the Swedish couple's white Subaru but denied ever meeting them. Tamihere, now in his 70s and living in West Auckland, has always maintained that he was framed by police. He was charged with their murders and at his trial in November 1990, a jailhouse informant, then known as 'secret witness C', testified that Tamihere had admitted to the killings while in prison – having been sentenced on the earlier rape conviction. David Tamihere at his home in Sunnyvale after the Court of Appeal declined to quash his convictions in 2024. Photo / Michael Craig Witness C – a murderer later identified as Roberto Conchie Harris, who would die in prison and have his evidence discredited - claimed Tamihere told him he had bashed Höglin with a piece of wood and dumped the couple's bodies at sea. Two other inmates also testified that Tamihere had made admissions. Another piece of key evidence came from two trampers who said they saw Tamihere with a blonde woman who looked like Paakkonen. But it was after Tamihere's conviction, despite the Crown having no bodies or a murder weapon, that the case was turned on its head. Slain Swedish couple Urban Hoglin and Heidi Paakkonen. Paakkonen's body has never been found. Exactly two years after Tamihere was charged, Höglin's body was found in a shallow grave by pig hunters near Whangamata – more than 70km from where the Crown said the murders had happened. But it was not enough to convince the Court of Appeal in 1992, or the Privy Council later, and Tamihere would spend 20 years behind bars. He was released on parole from his life sentence in 2010. In 2020, he was granted the rare legal lifeline of a Royal Prerogative of Mercy which allowed his case to be heard by the Court of Appeal in 2023 – only to have his case dismissed again, despite the panel of three judges finding the use of evidence from a discredited jailhouse snitch amounted to a miscarriage of justice. But last December, in yet another twist in one of New Zealand's most infamous cases, the country's highest court, the Supreme Court, granted him leave – and a final chance to try and clear his name. The five justices hearing Tamihere's challenge will focus on whether the Court of Appeal should have exercised its jurisdiction under a particular section of the Crimes Act to quash the double-murder convictions. The Supreme Court has said it will likely probe whether Tamihere's trial was unfair whether there was (in light of new evidence or otherwise) a fundamental error at his trial Couple disappeared when Tamihere was on the run Höglin and Paakkonen went missing when they were hiking in dense Coromandel bush in April 1989. At that time, Tamihere was on the run from police. Three years earlier, he had raped and threatened a 47-year-old woman in her home for more than six hours. He pleaded guilty to that offence but had ignored his bail conditions and absconded to the bush, where he was living rough. He also had a prior conviction for manslaughter after hitting 23-year-old stripper Mary Barcham on the head with a rifle in 1972, when he was 18. On April 10, 1989, Tamihere came across the Swedish couple's white Subaru, 'loaded with gear' and parked near the start of a difficult walking track. He stole the car – something he has always admitted. Weeks later, after the Swedes' disappearance had sparked the largest land-based search in New Zealand history, Tamihere was linked to the car. The Hughes connection Tamihere has always claimed that police framed him. The head of the investigation, Detective Inspector John Hughes, had also been involved in the case against Arthur Allan Thomas, who was found guilty over the Crewe murders in 1970. Thomas was released after nine years in jail and given nearly $1 million in compensation; a Royal Commission of Inquiry said that detectives had planted fake evidence, and police had produced fake confessions from two prisoners. 'It causes us grave concern that very senior police officers were so obviously ready to place credence on such unreliable, self-interested, and, in the case of the first inmate, deluded evidence,' the commission's report said. The report did not name any officers in relation to the confessions, nor was there any sign of Hughes' involvement in the planting of fake evidence. But Hughes did provide evidence about Thomas being in the Crewe home that was wrong, and which allowed Thomas' credibility to be attacked under cross-examination. Hughes died in 2006. The Post journalist Mike White reported in 2023 that Hughes had bragged to Sir Bob Jones that 'I nailed [Tamihere] by making up all the evidence'. Hughes was also spoken to as part of the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) investigation, in 1996, into Harris' claims of a $100,000 police offer and help to get parole in exchange for saying Tamihere had confessed to the murders to him. Hughes told the IPCA that the claim of a $100,000 bribe was 'absolute rubbish'. 'I believed that he [Harris] was sincere for his motive for coming forward... He was respectful to the Crown, Defence Counsel and everyone and explained why he was there. He was sick of listening to Tamihere quoting about what he had done,' Hughes told the IPCA. Hughes admitted to travelling to Christchurch to appear at Harris' parole hearing in 1992, telling the Parole Board that Harris had given evidence at the Tamihere trial, 'nothing more'. The board postponed its decision until a further hearing six months later, when it recommended releasing Harris. The IPCA found the allegations of police misconduct had 'no validity whatsoever'.
