Key Takeaways
- On the night of 2 November 2023, a group of teenagers repeatedly entered Durk De Boer’s Waikato farm property, creating noise and disturbance.
- De Boer confronted them with his tractor and a metal pole; the teens claimed they were assaulted, while De Boer argued he used reasonable force to stop trespassing.
- Video from the teens’ own phones and De Boer’s four CCTV cameras showed minor contact with the tractor but no clear assault.
- Judge Philip Crayton found the teenagers’ accounts inconsistent and deemed their behaviour a deliberate nuisance intended to provoke a reaction.
- The judge ruled that any striking of the teens’ vehicle by the tractor constituted reasonable force, not assault, and dismissed the teens’ claims.
- The decision underscores the landowner’s right to protect property from repeated trespass, provided the response remains proportionate.
Background
Durk De Boer, a farmer residing southeast of Te Awamutu in the Waikato region, became the focus of a legal dispute after a series of late‑night visits by a group of young people to his property. The complainant, a teenage driver, initially claimed he and his friends were merely “looking at lasers” in the night sky. However, the repeated nature of their arrivals—burnouts, honking, and lingering in the driveway—prompted De Boer to view their actions as a deliberate disturbance rather than innocent curiosity. The case ultimately hinged on whether De Boer’s use of his tractor and a metal pole amounted to an assault or a lawful exercise of reasonable force to prevent trespass.
Incident Timeline
According to police and court records, the first encounter occurred at 8:53 p.m. when two vehicles performed burnouts and sounded horns near De Boer’s driveway, agitating his dogs. The complainant returned at 8:59 p.m. in his Hyundai Getz, attempting to navigate the long, curved driveway before speeding away. A second return at 9:07 p.m. saw similar behaviour, followed by a third arrival at 9:32 p.m. in a yellow Toyota Surf (the complainant’s father’s vehicle). During this final visit, the teens reversed into De Boer’s driveway and remained there for an extended period, prompting the farmer to approach them from his paddock with a tractor and a wooden pole.
Witness Accounts
The teenagers testified that they were struck multiple times by the tractor’s bucket, that their vehicle was driven backward into De Boer’s son’s car, and that De Boer wielded a metal pole threateningly through the car window. They asserted their sole purpose was to locate the person who had chased them earlier in order to apologise and defuse tension. In contrast, De Boer maintained that he acted only to stop the trespass, admitted to feeling angry, and conceded that he may have struck the windscreen or bonnet with his pole while attempting to prevent the teens from fleeing. The judge noted the teenagers’ frequent claims of poor memory—“I can’t remember it was two years ago”—which hindered efforts to test the consistency of their statements.
Video Evidence from the Teens’ Phones
Two recordings made inside the complainant’s vehicle provided a contemporaneous view of the confrontation. The first clip shows De Boer’s tractor pulling in front of the teens’ car, the bucket raised and pointed toward the vehicle, with only minor contact observed. The audio captures expletives such as “What the f***" and pleas to “lock the doors,” alongside a female voice urging “go back, go back.” The second video depicts a visibly angry De Boer at the driver’s side window, holding a wooden pole and demanding the driver’s licence, stating, “Give me your driver’s licence or I will smash your car.” The judge observed that the teens repeatedly said they were “leaving” and “looking at the lasers,” never mentioning an apology, which undermined their professed motive.
CCTV Footage from De Boer’s Property
De Boer’s farm was equipped with four sound‑enabled CCTV cameras, which recorded the entire sequence from multiple angles. The footage confirmed the timing of each visit, the horn honking, and the teens’ attempts to reverse out of the driveway. Crucially, the cameras showed the tractor making only slight contact with the teens’ vehicle—enough to hinder escape but not to cause significant damage. The judge highlighted that the CCTV evidence directly contradicted the teenagers’ allegations of repeated, forceful strikes, establishing that their accounts were not truthful.
Judge’s Reasoning on Reasonable Force
Judge Philip Crayton began by acknowledging De Boer’s understandable anger after repeated nocturnal intrusions. He emphasized that the landowner was entitled to use reasonable force to prevent trespass under New Zealand law. The judge found that any threat or minor striking of the teens’ vehicle by the tractor’s bucket fell firmly within the bounds of reasonable force, as it was intended to stop the vehicle from leaving rather than to inflict injury. He rejected the claim of assault, stating that had an assault occurred, the teens would have likely reported it immediately rather than waiting three weeks to file an insurance claim.
Legal Findings and Verdict
After weighing the conflicting testimonies, video evidence, and CCTV recordings, Judge Crayton concluded that the teenagers were not credible witnesses. He determined that their repeated returns were deliberate attempts to provoke a reaction, not genuine efforts to apologise. Consequently, he ruled that De Boer’s actions did not constitute assault; rather, they were a lawful response to protect his property. The judgment noted that the teens had learned a salient lesson about respecting private property and privacy, and expressed hope that the incident would deter similar future behaviour.
Outcome and Implications
The court’s decision reinforced the principle that property owners may employ proportionate measures to halt persistent trespass, especially when the trespassers’ conduct is intentionally disruptive. While the judgment favoured De Boer, it also served as a cautionary tale for young people about the legal consequences of repeatedly entering private land without permission, particularly when accompanied by noise, honking, and other forms of agitation. The case highlights the importance of clear, truthful testimony and the value of objective evidence—such as video recordings—in resolving disputes where memories may fade or be coloured by personal bias.
Conclusion
The episode on Kay Road in November 2023 culminated in a judicial affirmation that Durk De Boer’s use of his tractor and a pole was a reasonable response to repeated, provocative trespass by a group of teenagers. By balancing the landowner’s right to protect his property against the youths’ claim of assault, Judge Crayton delivered a ruling grounded in the available video evidence and the overall context of the night’s events. The outcome serves as a reminder that while frustration may arise from unwanted visits, the law permits only reasonable, proportionate actions to safeguard one’s land—and that deceitful or exaggerated claims will not withstand scrutiny when confronted with reliable documentation.