Olsen v Police

Ms Olsen is involved with the climate change protest group Restore Passenger Rail (RPR). She believes the New Zealand Government has failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions adequately, and that other means of political activity to address the issue have failed to prompt the necessary action. The group seeks better passenger rail services within Aotearoa New Zealand and has taken to protesting on significant roadways. On April 17, 2023, during morning rush hour, Ms Olsen allegedly took part in a protest blocking access to State Highway One in Wellington by endeavouring to glue her hand to the motorway with super glue. This alleged conduct resulted in Ms Olsen being charged with being a pedestrian on a motorway and, separately, endangering transport. Ms Olsen was released on ordinary bail, subject to conditions including not returning to Wellington, and not to encourage any illegal protest activity related to RPR. Ms Olsen breached the terms of her bail by going to Wellington and allegedly participating in another protest blocking a main road in Wellington by gluing her hand to the road on April 20, 2023. The alleged conduct gave rise to a further charge of endangering transport. Ms Olsen was again released on ordinary bail. Subsequently, Ms Olsen breached the terms of her bail and went to Wellington, and it is alleged that on September 4, 2023, she attempted to cement her hand on the road to block traffic. Ms Olsen was charged, but this time the District Court “reluctantly” declined her bail, in large part due to a significant risk of reoffending while on bail, including because the Judge found that Ms Olsen had “demonstrated that she believes her cause justifies breaching the law”. Ms Olsen appealed the District Court judgment. It was submitted that the Judge erred in failing to consider the importance of the climate emergency (in which RPR are trying to address), and failing to consider the historical importance of protest and of the right to protest. The District Court Judge did not refer to climate change or the right to protest in rights terms explicitly. The High Court accepted the risks and dangers of climate change and the international obligations New Zealand owes to try and address it. The Court further accepted that a citizen’s right to protest is fundamental, and, as with all rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, must be interpreted purposively (referencing Penwarden v R, a bail appeal relating to one of Ms Olsen’s alleged fellow protesters). However, while accepting on the face of it that the District Court Judge did not refer to climate change or to the right to protest in rights terms, Radich J found it was sufficiently clear that he took into account the fact that Ms Olsen was exercising a right to protest at the time of which she breached the conditions of her bail and of her subsequent arrest ([37]). Due to changed circumstances since the District Court hearing, the appeal was allowed (the circumstances being potential loss of job ([43]), and that a number of safety precautions had been taken before the alleged offending ([45]).