Judge-alone trial — obstruction — entering railway infrastructure without express authority — trespass — necessity — right to protest — amendment of charges — Railways Act 2005, ss 3, 4, 73 & 92 — Railways Corporation Act 1981, s 115(1) — Railway Safety and Corridor Management Act 1992, s 24(g) — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 3, 4, 5 & 6 — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 136 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 14 — Police v Mountier DC Christchurch CRI-2005-009-9100, 22 February 2006 — Hinchliffe v Sheldon [1955] 1 WLR 1207, 3 All ER 406 (DC) — Urlich v Police (1989) 4 CRNZ 144 (HC) — R v Savigny [2019] NZDC 20018, [2021] DCR 321 — R v Thompson [2018] NZDC 18874 — Dehn v Attorney-General [1988] 2 NZLR 564 (HC) — Leason v Attorney-General [2013] NZCA 509, [2014] 2 NZLR 224 (CA) — Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147 (CA) — R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652 (CA) — R v Loughnan [1981] VR 443 (VSC) — R v Hutchinson [2004] NZAR 303 (CA) — Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2024] NZSC 5, (2024) 25 ELRNZ 607 — R v Thacker [2021] EWCA Crim 97, [2021] QB 644 — R v Dimitropoulos [2020] QCA 75, (2020) 282 A Crim R 402 — Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC v Mivasair [2020] BCCA 255, (2020) 394 CCC (3d) 242 — R v Breen [2024] BCPC 95 — Wilcox v Police [1995] 2 NZLR 160 (CA) — Hague v Police HC Auckland M1634/85, 16 September 1986 — Bayer v Police HC Auckland AP238/90, 11 April 1991 — Webster v New Zealand Police [2019] NZHC 1335, [2019] NZAR 911 — Akulue v R [2013] NZSC 88, [2014] 1 NZLR 17 — Mash v Police [2014] NZHC 1223, [2014] NZAR 824 — Monsanto v Tilly [2000] Env LR 313 (CA) — R v Jones (Margaret) [2006] UKHL 16, [2007] 1 AC 136 — Southwark London Borough Council v Williams [1971] Ch 734 (CA) — Perka v R [1984] 2 SCR 232, (1984) 13 DLR (4th) 1 — Rolles v Commissioner of Police [2020] QDC 331 — C v WA Police [2024] WASC 79 — Police v Beggs [1999] 3 NZLR 615 — Ransfield v Radio Network Ltd [2005] 1 NZLR 233 (HC) — Hubbard v KiwiRail Ltd [2016] NZHC 1061 — Federated Farmers of NZ Inc v New Zealand Post Ltd [1990-92] 3 NZBORR 339 — Zeigler v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2014] NZHC 2186, [2014] NZAR 1267 — Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7, [2007] 3 NZLR 1 (SC) — Steedman v Police [2023] NZHC 1617 — Polynesian Spa Ltd v Osborne [2005] NZAR 408 (HC) — Works Infrastructure Ltd v Taranaki Regional Council [2002] NZRMA 517 (HC) — Fox v Attorney-General [2002] 3 NZLR 62 (CA) — Ross v Police (2002) 6 HRNZ 734 (HC) — Stevens v R [2022] NZCA 275 — McQuillan v Police [2018] NZHC 1247 — R v Arvand (2003) 20 CRNZ 742 (CA) The defendants were on trial for various charges under the Railways Act. The six defendants were climate activists and had obstructed a coal-carrying train by attaching themselves to the tracks in front of it, behind it, and climbing onto train cars containing the coal. The train was forced to stop over a railway crossing, blocking traffic and delaying train services for three hours. As a result of the protest the train had to be kept at the station overnight to be checked in case it was tampered with, and some coal had to be sent back to the mine for reprocessing out of concern it may have been contaminated. Two of the defendants faced charges of entering railway infrastructure without express authority, but the Court found that the evidence did not go far enough to prove all elements of the charges. All six defendants faced charges of obstruction of the train driver in the performance of his duty. The Court found that obstruction could arise in three contexts: if the actions of the defendants caused the train to stop, if the defendants prevented the train from reversing away, or if the defendants prevented the train from resuming the journey. Camera footage showed two of the defendants entering the railway corridor in front of the oncoming train, and an inference could be made that the defendants knew that this action would prevent the driver from performing his duty of driving the train north. The charges were proven against those two defendants. However, there was insufficient evidence that the train driver was obstructed from reversing or resuming his journey and the Court was not satisfied that the charges of obstruction against the other defendants were proven. Four of the defendants were charged with interference with a rail vehicle by climbing on top of it, but likewise there was insufficient prosecution evidence to prove the charges. The defendants raised the defence of necessity, arguing that the carbon emissions from burning the coal would contribute to climate change and so their actions were necessary to protect human life. The Court rejected this argument on the basis that their actions were symbolic, that there was no imminent emergency situation involving an immediate risk of harm to an identifiable person, and that their actions infringed on another party's lawful authority to burn coal. The defendants also raised a Bill of Rights (NZBORA) defence in that their rights of protest were infringed, but this was also rejected by the Court. The actions of KiwiRail were not covered by NZBORA, and even if they were, the defendants' rights to protest were justifiably limited by the Railways Act. The Court found that it was in the interests of justice to amend the charges of obstruction to charges of trespass, which on the evidence were found proven for all six defendants. The Court refrained from entering convictions in the event that the defendants applied for discharges without conviction. Judgment Date: 23 September 2024.