Graffiti vandal sued for $33,000

Photo / The Aucklander

A vandal who caused tens of thousands of dollars worth of graffiti damage is being sued by the Auckland City Council to recover repair costs.

In what is believed to be a New Zealand first, the council has filed a civil action in the Auckland District Court, seeking $33,000 from the spray can-wielding 21-year-old.

The young man pleaded guilty to 21 intentional damage charges in September last year. He was sentenced to community work and ordered to pay $500 reparation. Costs of $2100 had been sought.

But after the sentencing, the council's graffiti tracker database captured a further 551 incidents of vandalism it believes the tagger was responsible for.

Community services committee chairman Paul Goldsmith said yesterday that civil court action was another tool to use in fighting graffiti.

"This action we are taking ... demonstrates the council's intent to hold offenders fully accountable for their actions.

"Graffiti currently costs ratepayers millions of dollars each year and also places considerable costs on private property owners and schools."

Since the council introduced a new eradication service in July 2008, graffiti has been removed from more than 146,000 sites, and 176 people have been caught.

All graffiti is photographed and entered into the graffiti database to track and identify offenders.

The top 10 graffiti vandals are regularly targeted using camera surveillance and by other means before the evidence is handed to police.

The move is thought to have the support of both Citizens and Ratepayers and City Vision councillors.

Graeme Easte (City Vision) said he doubted any councillors would have sympathy for the tagger.

He was not sure how realistic it was to recover the entire $33,000. "We might not get every last cent from him - you can't get blood from a stone."

But City Vision colleague Cathy Casey said the court action was pouring "good money after bad".

"How are you going to get $33,000 from a 21-year-old?" she said. "The court obviously took his financial position into account and asked him for only $500."

Dr Casey said the council would probably spend more on the court case than it would get back from the vandal.

A better way of getting the message across to him that graffiti was wrong would be to get him to paint over tags as part of his community service.

"That's what will make the difference, not hounding him for whatever we can."

Mr Easte said the court action was necessary because an example needed to be set for vandals and taggers.

"Just wagging your finger at them won't work - they need to be nailed."