R v Oosterman

This case involved Simon Oosterman, who was charged with obstructing a public way and resisting a police officer while participating in an anti-Iraq war protest in Auckland. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered the appeal against the conviction for obstruction under s 22(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981. The primary legal issue was whether the lower courts correctly interpreted s 22 of the Act in light of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, specifically considering Oosterman's right to protest. The applicant argued that his conduct, though obstructive, was justified as a reasonable excuse under the Bill of Rights. However, the court found that the appeal did not raise a question of law of general or public importance. Both the trial judge and the High Court had correctly interpreted s 22, taking into account the Bill of Rights in determining the reasonableness of Oosterman's actions. The Supreme Court's recent guidance on interpreting the Bill of Rights further supported the lower courts' approach. As such, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed.