A protester pepper-sprayed during a march has been awarded $5000 as compensation for breach of his rights.
Simon Oosterman had sought $50,000 for assault and breach of his rights after he was pepper-sprayed while he was being arrested at a protest at Forest Research, now Scion, in Rotoruaon January 30, 2005.
He said he had been passively resisting arrest when police used the chemical spray.
New Zealand Police guidelines state pepper-spray should not be taken to demonstrations unless authorised by a district commander.
At the Forest Research demonstration, police were belatedly sent after the officer in charge became concerned about a change of route by the protesters.
They were not told to leave their pepper-spray behind.
The police guidelines say pepper-spray should only be used in certain circumstances, such as when police fear physical injury to themselves or others, and should ideally be sprayed from a distance of a metre.
At a Rotorua District Court hearing in April, Judge Chris McGuire heard that Mr Oosterman intervened when police tried to arrest a fellow protester.
Two police officers tried to handcuff him, and when it proved difficult, he was pepper-sprayed, which made him immediately kneel to the ground.
Videotape showed the entire arrest, from grabbing hold of Mr Oosterman to spraying him, took about 20 seconds. He was sprayed from about 15 to 20 centimetres.
Mr Oosterman testified he was in extreme pain, and had trouble breathing. He had headaches for about a week afterwards.
In his decision yesterday, Judge McGuire said police actions had not been reasonable.
The officers were young and fit, and already had one handcuff attached to Mr Oosterman. Although they were in a situation which had the potential to become volatile, there was no immediate danger of interference by third parties.
Awarding $5000 in compensation, Judge McGuire said although the pepper spraying was momentary, it caused "real pain and discomfort".
He rejected Mr Oosterman's claim of assault, saying the officer's actions did not quite meet the necessary "high threshold of blameworthiness".
