Key Takeaways
- On 2 November 2023, a group of teenagers repeatedly trespassed on farmer Durk De Boer’s Waikato property, prompting a confrontation in which De Boer used a tractor and a metal pole.
- De Boer was charged with assault but was found not guilty; the judge ruled his actions constituted reasonable force to stop the trespass.
- Video footage from the teenagers’ own phones and De Boer’s CCTV system showed the farmer’s tractor making only minor contact with the youths’ vehicle and his verbal demands for a driver’s licence.
- The judge rejected the teens’ claim that they were merely “looking at lasers,” finding their explanations inconsistent and motivated by a desire to provoke a reaction.
- The decision emphasized respect for private property and warned that repeated nuisance behaviour can justify a measured, non‑violent response from landowners.
Incident Overview and Initial Police Report
On the night of 2 November 2023, a carload of young people arrived at Durk De Boer’s rural property on Kay Road, southeast of Te Awamutu, after earlier performing burnouts and making loud noises that disturbed the farmer’s dogs. The teenagers claimed they were simply “looking at lasers” in the night sky, but police noted the road was a dead‑end, prompting them to turn around and later allege they were chased by another vehicle. After leaving the area, they returned an hour later in a yellow Toyota Surf, stating they wanted to apologise to whoever had chased them. The repeated returns—four visits in total—set the stage for the confrontation that followed.
The Confrontation as Described by the Teenagers
During the final visit, the teenager driving the Toyota Surf alleged that De Boer approached the vehicle in his tractor, struck the bonnet several times, and then exited the cab wielding a metal pole, attempting to hit him through the window. The youths said they felt threatened and claimed the tractor’s bucket was used to ram their car, causing damage and fear. They maintained that their sole purpose that night was to locate the person who had allegedly chased them earlier, offering an apology and seeking to defuse any “bad blood.” Their testimony, however, was later challenged by inconsistencies and a lack of clear recollection of events that occurred two years prior.
Farmer’s Version of Events
Durk De Boer testified that he was angry after repeated nuisance visits and went to the driveway to stop the teenagers from leaving his property. He said he lifted the tractor’s bucket to block the vehicle’s escape route and, when the youths refused to comply, he grabbed a wooden pole and demanded the driver’s licence, warning he would smash the car if they did not cooperate. De Boer admitted he may have struck the windscreen or bonnet with the pole but insisted his actions were intended only to prevent further trespass, not to cause injury. He characterised himself as a law‑abiding farmer of good character who was provoked by the youths’ deliberate disruption.
Judicial Assessment of the Evidence
Judge Philip Crayton reserved his decision after reviewing a wealth of evidence, including two videos recorded inside the teenagers’ car and De Boer’s four CCTV cameras with audio. The judge noted that the teenagers’ claims of being unable to recall details because the incident happened “two years ago” hampered efforts to test the consistency of their testimony. He found the video footage to be objective and revealing, showing only minor contact between the tractor’s bucket and the youths’ vehicle and hearing the teenagers’ own statements such as “What the f***,” “lock the doors,” and “go back, go back,” which indicated they were anticipating a confrontation.
Analysis of the Video Footage
The first video from inside the youths’ car depicted De Boer’s tractor pulling in front of them, making slight contact with the vehicle as the bucket was raised toward the bonnet. The judge concluded this contact was minor and served to prevent the car from fleeing rather than to inflict damage. The audio captured the teenagers’ agitated remarks and a female voice urging them to “go back, go back.” The second video showed De Boer at the driver’s side window, holding a wooden pole, visibly angry, and demanding the driver’s licence while stating, “Give me your driver’s licence or I will smash your car.” The judge deemed this conduct consistent with an effort to halt the trespass, not an assault.
CCTV Evidence and the “Four Unwanted Visits”
De Boer’s property surveillance system recorded four distinct visits by the teenagers’ vehicles. The first visit at 8:53 pm involved two cars doing burnouts, honking, and laughing, which agitated the farmer’s dogs. Subsequent visits at 8:59 pm, 9:07 pm, and 9:32 pm showed the teenagers repeatedly entering the driveway, honking, reversing, and lingering despite the farmer’s attempts to deter them. The CCTV footage clearly depicted the youths’ vehicle reversing into the driveway and remaining there for a significant period while De Boer approached from his paddock. The judge used this timeline to reject the teens’ claim that they were merely looking for someone to apologise to, characterising their behaviour as a deliberate pattern of provocation.
Judge’s Ruling on Reasonable Force
After weighing the evidence, Judge Crayton determined that no assault had occurred. He accepted De Boer’s account that he acted to stop the teenagers from leaving his property and to prevent further trespass. The judge found any threat or minor striking of the victims’ vehicle to be firmly within the bounds of reasonable force permissible under New Zealand law to protect private property. He emphasized that the teenagers’ repeated returns, noisy behaviour, and apparent intent to elicit a reaction justified the farmer’s measured response. The judge expressed hope that the incident would teach the youths a lesson about respecting others’ property and privacy.
Implications and Closing Remarks
The ruling underscores the legal principle that landowners may use reasonable, non‑lethal force to deter trespassers, especially when faced with repeated, intentional nuisance behaviour. While the teenagers faced no criminal liability for their actions, the judgment serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of disturbing private property and provoking confrontations. De Boer, relieved of the assault charge, can resume his farming activities, and the case adds to the body of New Zealand jurisprudence concerning the limits of self‑help and property protection in rural settings. The decision also highlights the value of objective evidence—such as dashcam and CCTV footage—in resolving disputes where witness memories may be flawed or self‑serving.