Trial — wilful damage — lawful justification — pou — cultural significance — Rangitaane — intolerance — Manawatu Gorge — cut off penis with chainsaw — Crimes Act 1961, s 2 — Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11 — R v Cooley [2008] NZCA 149 — Hayes v R [2008] NZSC 3 — R v Martin HC Whanganui CRI-2003-083-432B, 24 March 2004 — Kapi v Ministry of Transport [1992] 1 NZLR 227 — Easton v Police [2013] NZCA 98. The defendant faced one charge of wilful damage. Near the entrance to the Manawatu Gorge a pou, a wooden carving of Rangitane o Manawatu, had been placed in partnership with the Department of Conservation by the local iwi group Rangitane o Tamaki nui a Rua. The defendant was a volunteer worker for the Department and took offence to the phallus on the pou, so he damaged it by cutting off the penis with a chainsaw. The elements of the charge of wilful damage were that the defendant damaged the property, he did so deliberately and he did so without lawful justification, excuse or claim of right. The defendant freely admitted he damaged the pou intentionally, so the only issue was whether he did so without lawful justification or excuse. The defendant also admitted he knew his actions were unlawful but he believed he was making something indecent decent, and argued he had the moral right to damage the pou. The Judge referred to case law which established the high threshold for a defence of necessity or justification, which was not met in these circumstances. It was also noted that the kind of defence advanced by the defendant can easily become "a mask for anarchy", by allowing people to justify taking the law into their own hands based on their subjective beliefs and morality. Allowing this could lead to intolerance. The defendant never made any efforts to understand the meaning behind the pou or why damaging it would be offensive to Maori. He was only concerned with his own opinion. A kaumatua from the iwi explained in evidence that the carving with the penis represented Rangitaane as he was known to the iwi. He held cultural significance for the iwi and the local community, in particular the fertility he bestowed on his iwi and descendants. The defendant had no lawful justification or excuse for damaging the pou. With all of the other elements of the offence proved, the Judge found the defendant guilty. Judgment Date: 22 July 2019.