Creative Tactics in Court

As part of the ongoing campaign of the Melbourne Rainforest Action Group
(MRAG), ninteen members of the group, were arrested and charged with
climbing, wilful trespass and refusing to obey a directive of the Victorian
police force on the 16th of June 1991.  The arrests followed an attempt to
reload a shipment of tropical timber.  The nonviolent action was planned to
highlight the continuing role of Australians, in the destruction of the
rainforests in South East Asia.

In accordance with our commitment to nonviolence, those arrested furthered
our resistance by attending court and defending our actions.

In past court cases the defence of necessity has been used.  Activists have
argued that they had an honest and reasonable belief, that what they had
done, was to in some way halt Australia's role in rainforest destruction. 
They have also argued that they have acted out of 'necessity' in view of the
'irreparable evil' and 'imminent peril' which they were trying to prevent.

This case however was different.  The activists from MRAG, who acknowledge
Aboriginal sovereignty and who pay the rent every week for their use of
Aboriginal land, chose to argue that they had permission to be on the land
from its rightful owners.  Therefore, the charges against the activists would
be nullified and there would be no case to answer.  This would also draw into
question the false legal principle of 'Terra Nullius', or 'empty land' which
forms the legal 'justification' for the theft of Aboriginal lands.

Prior to the action, Robbie Thorpe, who is the cultural officer at the
Aboriginal Advancement League, the treasurer of the Aboriginal Provisional
Government and a member of the Brabuwooloong Nation, was contacted and asked
if members of MRAG could enter the area of Victoria Dock.  We were given
assurance by Robbie, that what we were going to do was morally, legally and
under Aboriginal law, the right thing to do.

Several meetings were organised for activists, prior to the court case, to
discuss this novel defence and to individually prepare what we wanted to say
to the court.  Poor attendance at these meetings, made it very difficult for
the group to fully appreciate the power of group court defence and how
important it is as nonviolent activists to continue our collected resistance.

Nevertheless, seventeen activists arrived at Melbourne Magistrate's Court on
Friday the 8th of November.  We formed a circle in the foyer and discussed
how the case would run.  It was also necessary to familiarise some activists
with the defence that was to be used.  There was a real sense of unity within
the group, people were prepared to tell the court exactly why they had done
what they had done.

Activists and supporters crowded into the tiny courtroom, it was actually
quite funny watching the court security person run around finding chairs.  I
felt that this humour helped relieve any tension, that people may have been
feeling, it was also a good opportunity to talk with the security person and
explain to him how we were going to run the case.

The creative, nonviolent protest action began at 10.30 a.m., when the
magistrate Louis Hill, (who bore an uncanny resemblance to Clive Robertson
from the late night T.V. show) entered the court and began the proceedings.

It is necessary to break down the fear that is often found in courtrooms. 
This fear is in fact supported by things such as legal jargon, the way that
the courtroom is physically set up and the fear of the sanction that will be
incurred.  The activists from MRAG definitely broke down this fear.  There
were perhaps twenty-five people literally squashed into two long seats.  A
member of our group sat very comfortably at the prosecuting table and
proceeded to ask our witness, Robbie Thorpe  questions.  Robbie gave evidence
using a tribal map which clearly outlined that the area in question was
Koorie land and not land that belonged to the Port of Melbourne Authority. 
When the police prosecutor cross examined Robbie, he referred to Aboriginal
history, but also asked some very ridiculous questions. eg. "Do you have a
title deed to the land in question?",   indicating an abhorrent lack of
knowledge about the real history of Australia, but one which is sadly held by
many.  However it did become apparent that he had done some prior reading and
he stated that he had in fact talked at length with other members of police
at the station.

During the forty minutes that Robbie, who was referred to as Djuran, his
Aboriginal name, was in the witness box, he managed to deliver some very
articulate and straight forward facts on the annihilation of the Aboriginal
people in this country.

The magistrate adjourned the case while he examined evidence presented to the
court.  When he returned he proclaimed that we were all found guilty.   He
felt that he had to uphold the law as it stood.  He then asked us if we
wanted to speak about why we had 'broken' the law.  One by one, each activist
stood and told the magistrate and the rest of the court exactly why they had
acted as they had.

This assertive communication by the activists, which I feel can only be
achieved when there is an absence of fear, cut at the very core of court
procedure and the hierarchy of power that society assumes exists.  The
magistrate and the law was challenged on every basis.  We made it quite clear
that most of us had been involved in nonviolent action before and that we
would continue this involvement.  We drew the links  between our
unwillingness to be complicit in the genocide of the indigenous peoples of
both south east Asia and Australia, whilst pointing out that the magistrate
was protecting the people who have vested interest in rainforest destruction.
We also pointed out that the law is inappropriate and outmoded when it comes
to dealing with environmental and social justice issues.

The result was that the magistrate fined us $200 each and offered those who
wished a good behaviour bond.  Nobody accepted the bond and the amount of the
fine was questioned, as being yet another form of state control over those
who genuinely want to see positive change.  Most activists indicated that
they would not be paying the fine, but would arrange to spend the time in
jail, as a continued form of resistance.  "You can jail the resister, but not
the resistance."

By the end of the day in court, it became obvious that other people 
including court officers and reporters, were thinking more deeply about the
rainforest and the Aboriginal issue.  Speaking to the reporter after the
case, she remarked that it was a highly political trial.

This was my second experience as a defendant in court.  I recognised straight
away that my level of fear had decreased greatly and I felt inspired by the
level of honesty and commitment of the activists that closely surrounded me. 
I understand clearly that defending ourselves  is a powerful form of
nonviolent resistance and a great learning experience.
Bernadette McCartney