Key Takeaways
- Judge Philip Crayton ruled that Durk De Boer used reasonable force to stop trespassing teenagers on his Waikato property on the night of 2 November 2023 and therefore acquitted him of assault.
- The court found that the teenagers’ claim of an unprovoked attack was not credible, largely because their own video recordings showed them provoking the confrontation and admitting they were not there to apologise.
- CCTV footage from De Boer’s property provided an objective record that contradicted the complainants’ version of events and showed only minor contact with the tractor, which the judge deemed lawful.
- The judge emphasized that property owners are entitled to use reasonable force to prevent trespass, and that the defendant’s anger was understandable given the repeated disturbances to his livestock and peace.
- The decision sends a clear message: respect for private property is expected, and individuals who repeatedly disturb rural residents may face lawful intervention rather than criminal liability for the property owner’s response.
Background of the Incident
On the evening of 2 November 2023, a group of teenagers drove along Kay Rd, southeast of Te Awamutu, initially claiming they were “looking at lasers in the night sky.” After realizing the road was a dead end, they turned around and alleged they were chased by a vehicle. An hour later they returned in a yellow Toyota Surf, stating they wished to apologise to the person who had chased them. The teens claimed they “completely by chance” pulled into the driveway of farmer Durk De Boer, where a confrontation ensued involving a tractor, a wooden pole, and alleged strikes to their vehicle.
CCTV Evidence Undermines the Complainants’ Story
De Boer’s property was equipped with four CCTV cameras that recorded both video and audio. The footage showed the teenagers’ car arriving, honking, and repeatedly attempting to navigate the long, tree‑lined driveway. It captured the tractor moving in front of the vehicle, the bucket being lifted, and only “minor contact” with the car—far from the repeated, forceful strikes the complainants described. Audio from the videos included the teenagers shouting profanities, urging each other to lock the doors, and a female voice repeatedly saying “go back, go back,” indicating they were trying to leave rather than seek an apology.
Police Allegations vs. Judicial Findings
Police had alleged that De Boer assaulted the teen with a weapon (the tractor’s bucket) and that the teen’s vehicle was struck multiple times. Judge Crayton, after reviewing the CCTV, the in‑car videos, and witness testimony, concluded that no assault occurred. He found that any contact between the tractor and the vehicle was minimal and fell within the scope of reasonable force used to prevent trespass. The judge expressly stated that the only person responsible for damage to the complainant’s car was the complainant himself, noting the delay in reporting the incident until three weeks later when an insurance claim was filed.
Assessment of Witness Credibility
The judge highlighted serious credibility problems with the complainants and their friends. Their testimony was marred by frequent claims of poor memory (“I can’t remember, it was two years ago”), which hampered cross‑examination. In contrast, De Boer’s son gave evidence that the judge described as “reliable, truthful and consistent.” The son testified that he had taken a stick to the driveway, was angry about the repeated disturbances, and admitted he may have struck the windscreen or bonnet with the pole—but only in an effort to stop the trespassing vehicle.
Legal Reasoning: Reasonable Force to Prevent Trespass
Under New Zealand law, a landowner may use reasonable force to deter trespassers. Judge Crayton accepted that De Boer was “plainly, and understandably, very angry” after the teenagers had repeatedly disturbed his dogs, honked horns, and performed burnouts near his property. The judge concluded that De Boer’s actions—driving the tractor to block the car’s exit, lifting the bucket to prevent escape, and briefly striking the vehicle with a pole—were proportionate and lawful. He explicitly stated that any threat or minor striking of the victim’s vehicle “fell firmly within reasonable force.”
Implications and the Judge’s Hope
While delivering his reserved decision, Judge Crayton expressed the hope that the incident would teach the teenagers an important lesson about respecting private property and privacy. He characterized the episode as a “rude shock” for the youths, suggesting that the confrontation served as a wake‑up call regarding the consequences of repeatedly disturbing rural residents. The ruling reinforces that property owners are not required to endure ongoing nuisance and may act within legal bounds to protect their land and livelihood.
Conclusion
The case of Durk De Boer versus the group of teen “boy racers” illustrates how objective evidence—particularly CCTV and in‑car video—can overturn allegations of assault when the claimants’ narratives are inconsistent. Judge Crayton’s judgment underscores the balance between protecting private property and ensuring that any force used remains reasonable and proportionate. The acquittal sends a clear signal to both landowners and visitors: respect for boundaries is paramount, and lawful self‑help measures to stop trespass will be upheld when they stay within the limits of reasonable force.