Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 36, Number 16. 12th July 1973

Some Spotlight!

Some Spotlight!

However, in denying that a car could have escaped unnoticed the prosecution got itself into rather a muddle. They-had presented evidence of a spotlight being used by demonstrators and of a sign being removed by them, yet neither of these objects had been found in the vehicles that had been stopped. After this contradiction had become clear the stolen sign was not mentioned again and Judge Patterson did not refer to it in his summing up. The matter of the spotlight was "solved" by evidence that a "spotlight" had been found in the defendant Suggate's car. This "spotlight" was a 25-watt bulb on the end of a cord. In his summing up, Patterson said that he accepted that this was the spotlight used.

Due to the vague and general wording of Section 86 the police were able to produce a wide variety of evidence to prove that the demonstration was "tumultuous". A bottle of insect repellent, a can of tyre repair and a walking stick, found in one of the demonstrator's cars were produced by Sergeant Kavanagh as "offensive weapons" which could have been used by demonstrators to disable policemen. When ambitious young defence lawyer. Stephen Erber, asked Kavanagh why he hadn't confiscated the car's jack, spanners and spare wheel as these could also have been used as offensive weapons he was met with an embarrassed silence.

Various objects found after the demonstration were also produced as exhibits. These included a section of telephone cable, an empty whiskey bottle, copies of "Ferret", firecrackers, posters and a letter. The letter turned out to be an invitation to a M.O.W. darts evening.