VZCZCXRO6286
RR RUEHNZ
DE RUEHWL #0450 1632350
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 122350Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2885
INFO RUEHNZ/AMCONSUL AUCKLAND 0774
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHHJJAA/JICPAC HONOLULU HI
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHDC

UNCLAS WELLINGTON 000450 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR D (FRITZ), EAP/FO, AND EAP/ANP 
NSC FOR VICTOR CHA 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISD LIZ PHU 
PACOM FOR J01E/J2/J233/J5/SJFHQ 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV NZ
SUBJECT:  FIRST PROSECUTION FOR SEDITION IN NEW ZEALAND IN 75 YEARS 
SETS OFF DEBATE OVER THE LAW'S UTILITY. 
 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: For the first time in nearly three quarters of a 
century, a New Zealander has been found guilty of sedition. Cases of 
sedition are extremely rare in New Zealand, with convictions rarer 
still. The exceptional nature of the charge has helped generated a 
good deal attention over whether there is still a place for the 
charge of sedition in modern New Zealand society. Some legal 
scholars have raised the question whether the legal standard for 
seditious actions in New Zealand is set too low and have cited the 
United States as having a more reasonable benchmark for the 
offense. 
 
Trial details 
------------- 
¶2. (SBU) Timothy Selwyn, 31, was charged with two counts of sedition 
and found guilty on one count for publishing seditious statements. 
The publishing charge refers to leaflets found within three miles of 
Prime Minister Helen Clark's electorate office in Auckland on 
November 18, 2004.  They were found after Selwyn planted an axe in 
office's window during the height of the debate over the 
controversial foreshore and seabed legislation. 
¶3. (SBU) A statement by Selwyn found within the leaflet called upon 
"all like-minded New Zealanders to take similar action" to his axe 
attack.  The Crown argued that the statement was seditious as it 
pointedly encouraged other New Zealanders to break the law through 
similar crimes.  For his part, Selwyn said the jury had 
"criminalized a press statement" and that he planned to appeal. He 
is currently free on bail pending sentencing next month 
The debate 
----------- 
¶4. (SBU) The case has drawn considerable controversy within New 
Zealand.  Many believe that New Zealand's sedition laws are a relic 
from another age, morally abhorrent and a clear-cut abuse of the 
right to freedom of speech. Civil libertarians have urged a review 
of the sedition laws. They argue that the laws' broad ranging 
applications potentially create an undue restraint on public debate 
of politically controversial matters. Selwyn is expected to use this 
line of argument as the basis for his appeal. Proponents of the 
existing laws argue that free speech can transcend into incitement 
of violence, and there will always be a need to enforce laws against 
that. 
¶5. (SBU) The left-wing Green party has called for a review of the 
laws, arguing that they suppress political dissent and have no place 
in a modern society. But the Government clearly disagrees.  At the 
time Selwyn's attack on her office, Prime Minister Clark said "This 
is violent criminal behaviour and there is no place for it in a 
democracy". 
Legal argument centers on the strength of the legal yardstick. 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
¶6. (SBU) As a result of this trial, some legal experts have observed 
that the legal benchmark for sedition in New Zealand may be set too 
low compared to the more demanding benchmark in United States 
constitutional law.  Under the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961, sedition 
is defined as "speech, writing or behaviour intended to encourage 
rebellion or resistance against the government". Selwyn was charged 
under section 81(1) (c) of the Act, which forbids any such 
publication meant "[t]o incite, procure, or encourage violence, 
lawlessness, or disorder". The New Zealand Police entered the 
leaflet as evidence of seditious material. 
 
McCormick