Fined for obstructing police in hunt for fugitive

Craig Murray Dempster
Craig Murray Dempster
A man who called 111 last year to say he might have seen fugitive William Stewart, which led to an armed police search near Dunback, has been convicted on a charge of obstructing police.

Craig Murray Dempster (38), a professional hunter-trapper from Waimate, denied obstructing Senior Sergeant Jason Guthrie and possessing a firearm (.22 rifle) at Dunback on March 31 last year.

He appeared before Judge Stephen O'Driscoll at a defended hearing in the Oamaru District Court on April 1 and Judge O'Driscoll reserved his decision until this week.

He found the charge of obstruction proven, while he dismissed the firearm charge.

In the Oamaru District Court yesterday, Dempster was fined $750, court costs $130, with Judge O'Driscoll saying the fine reflected his "incredibly stupid" actions, by not listening to police and by going to retrieve his motorcycle.

Dempster's counsel Wayne van Vuuren said Dempster had asked him to offer an apology to police, not for making the original 111 call and not for trying to assist police that night, but for going into the area the next morning.

He accepted he should never had gone to retrieve his motorcycle.

He maintained there was a man there and a skinned-out sheep carcass was found the next morning, Mr van Vuuren said.

In his decision, Judge O'Driscoll said as far as the obstruction charge was concerned, there was a duty to comply with reasonable requests or directions of a police officer.

The police case was that Dempster was given a specific direction not to enter the area where he had observed suspicious activity.

The defence was that the defendant did not recall being informed of that obligation.

Judge O'Driscoll found four constables gave Dempster specific directions that he was not to enter on to the property in the vicinity where he said he had observed the suspicious activity, and that the specific directions given to him included him being forbidden to retrieve his motorcycle.

He found the defendant did, without permission of police, enter on to the property.

He did not accept his contention that he was either not told to not enter the property or he had forgotten what he had been told.

Nor did he accept that the issue of returning to the property to retrieve the motorcycle had not been sufficiently "brought home to him".

Judge O'Driscoll found the requirement made by police to Dempster not to enter the property was entirely appropriate and reasonable.

Police suspected the person the defendant observed might have been a dangerous criminal who had been on the run.

It was also thought the person might be armed.

The reason for the request for Dempster not to enter the property to retrieve his motorcycle was as much for his benefit as to protect police officers attempting to locate the suspicious individual.

The defendant ran the risk of putting his safety in danger and his presence in the area also put members of the Armed Offenders Squad in danger.

 

Add a Comment