The radome effectively destroyed by three men protesting at the Waihopai listening base operated by the Government Communications Security Bureau cost taxpayers $1 million to replace, according to the bureau the day after the attack in 2008.
Presumably not all of this cost has, in fact, fallen on taxpayers, since it must be assumed insurance has alleviated some, if not all, of the loss. It has been reported that some damage also occurred to the antenna while it was uncovered for 15 months until a new cover could be fitted.
In short, there was an actual monetary cost to the actions of the three men, members of Ploughshares, a London-based disarmament movement which promotes its cause by attempting to disable military equipment.
It is certainly arguable whether the secret Waihopai Satellite Communications Station amounts to "military equipment", since it has a broad role to intercept signals intelligence as part of a protective alliance between New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, activity that must be assumed to directly benefit New Zealand's own security.
Its opponents have long believed the station intercepts regional private and government telephone, data, internet and television links carried on satellites operating in the East Asian and South Pacific sphere and that it is a part of a spying network operated by the United States and British intelligence agencies.
The opponents, including the three protesters who damaged the radome, consider the station complicit in wars, such as the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, and that this means New Zealand has "blood on its hands".
On prosecution, the three men raised a legally dubious "greater good" defence but the judge reportedly told the accused they could not be defended by "necessity" and "defence of others"; the accused then raised a so-called "claim of right" that their actions, although nominally criminal according to the law, were justified because they sincerely believed they were saving people from a greater evil, namely death by war.
This obliged the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the men had only hoped their actions were legal, rather than genuinely believing it, and a jury of their peers found them not guilty on all charges in just two hours after an eight-day trial - presumably the test of the validity of the assertions had not been disproved beyond reasonable doubt.
The jury's decision nevertheless implies a considerable degree of subjective sympathy for the defendants' cause.
Conscientious objection on religious or political grounds has a long history in this country and the military detention of objectors in wartime has been a contentious public issue; rare in the post-war years until the end of the National Service scheme in 1972, when pacifists turned to active protest at New Zealand's engagement in the Vietnam War.
It is hardly notable that the anti-war movement has protested against the existence of the Waihopai facility since it was built, and that it has claimed the jury's decision as a victory.
But the nature of that "victory" requires further consideration and public debate. Given that the activities of the station are highly secret, that it functions (we are told) in the interests wholly of the nation's security, it can hardly be imagined that the prosecution was able to point to the presumed benefits of its work.
Indeed it could not, and any attempt to do so, unless sanctioned by the Minister in Charge of the GCSB (the Prime Minister), would be mere speculation. However, some known and presumptive matters are sufficiently conclusive: New Zealand is an ally - formal or informal - of Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom.
Each shares intelligence on matters of security with the other. It it reasonable to suppose that security threats to New Zealand are part of the justification for the sharing of intelligence between allies.
It is plain fact that state borders do not deter terrorists and criminals in the digital age yet citizens continue to rely on the State to protect both themselves and the nation's borders. The Waihopai station must be considered to be part of that obligation but it seems hardly ever to be considered that its activities may well be saving lives, including within this country's borders.
However much some sincere objectors may dislike it and what it represents, can they offer a practical and reliable alternative to hold secure the safety of the nation and its citizens?
Fortunately, the jury's decision does not create a legal precedent, although it may encourage like-minded demonstrators of all kinds in future to seek a jury's compassion. In this case, a wiser decision would have been to apply that compassion in recommending mitigation in sentencing.
