Urewera four trial set to kick off

Posted by karere under Maori News

After four years and four months, numerous pre-trial arguments, appeals and alterations, the remaining members of the group arrested in the Urewera police raids will finally face trial in Auckland on Monday.

Of the 17 arrested across the country on October 15, 2007, only four remain after a landmark Supreme Court judgment ruled out evidence that led to the dropping of charges against 13 co-accused.

The four remaining defendants - Tame Iti, Emily Bailey, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara and Urs Signer - face charges of participating in a criminal group and illegal possession of firearms relating to camps held in the Urewera Ranges in 2006 and 2007.

The High Court at Auckland has been set aside for a three-month jury trial, though all involved hope it will not take that long for the mammoth case to be prosecuted and defended.

The Crown will call 75 to 80 witnesses and it is not yet known if the defence will call their own witnesses.

Iti’s lawyer Russell Fairbrother scotched rumours that the proceedings would be slowed through being translated into Maori, saying his client wanted the case prosecuted ”as efficiently as possible” and translation for Iti would not be necessary.

The Crown will be represented by experienced Auckland prosecutor Ross Burns, Fairbrother represents Iti, Charl Hirschfeld represents Kemara, Val Nisbet represents Bailey, and Christopher Stevenson represents Signer.

High Court staff say there will be no special security measures in place for the case, though Burns said there was ”an expectation there will be protesters”.

The case has followed a tortured path to trial.

The arrests sparked controversy after armed police set up roadblocks near Ruatoki and searched cars and, reportedly, a schoolbus.

Prosecution was initially sought under the Terrorism Suppression Act but the Solicitor General declined permission.

The trial of the original 17 accused faced numerous appeals over what evidence could be admitted, whether a jury would decide the case or a judge-alone, and where the trial would be held.

Though the Crown won the right to have the case heard by a judge-alone and in Auckland, the case was rocked in September 2011 when the Supreme Court ruled that some video surveillance evidence was inadmissible because it was illegally obtained.

As a result of the decision, charges against 14 of the accused were dropped.

The judge-alone decision was also later reversed with the reduced number of defendants lessening the complexity of the case that had necessitated a judge-alone.

[source]

Read all the news [here]