Judge-alone trial — assault — trespass — resisting police — implied consent — Auckland International Airport By-laws Approval Order 1989 — R v Wanhalla [2007] 2 NZLR 573 (CA) — Thompson v Police [2012] NZHC 1500 — Thompson v Police [2012] NZAR 741 — Waaka v Police [1987] 1 NZLR 754 — R v Thomas [1991] 3 NZLR 141 (CA) — Clarke v Police HC Wellington CRI-2003-485-28, 18 November 2003. The two defendants were charged with trespass and resisting a constable in execution of their duty. The first defendant was also separately charged with assault. The charges arose from an incident at the Auckland International Airport, where the two defendants were waiting to greet the arrival of some friends. They had with them a large video camera and a bluetooth microphone, and had interviewed others at the airport. They were approached by an airport staff member (the complainant) who queried whether they had permission to film. While the complainant was addressing the second defendant, the first defendant reached out and touched the complainant's arm to get her attention. This was the basis for the assault charge. In relation to the trespass and resisting police charge, it was alleged that the defendants had been asked to leave the premises by arriving police and when they did not do so, they were arrested. The Judge dismissed the trespass charge on the basis that the defendants had not been given a reasonable opportunity to leave the premises upon being warned to do so. Within seconds of being asked to leave, they were arrested. On the first defendant's charge of assault, it was accepted by both the first defendant and the complainant that the first defendant had touched the complainant's arm for the purposes of getting the complainant's attention, but the first defendant submitted she had an honest belief in implied consent for the touch. The Judge considered the video footage from the incident and determined that the first defendant had acted in a hostile manner towards the complainant. The Judge found the first defendant guilty on the charge of assault. On the charges of resisting police, the Judge considered that the police had been acting in the course of their lawful duties, but that there was a lack of intent on the part of the defendants to resist the arrest. The sequence of events occurred over an 18 second timeframe, and the Judge noted that the escalation of events leading to the charges had been contributed to by both the defendants and the police. The Judge found the charge of resisting arrest against both defendants not proven to the required standard, and acquitted both defendants on this charge. Judgment Date: 21 May 2024.