He is clearly making a political statement, which is his right, but he now knows the law, if he did not know it when he failed to appear, and must accept the consequences.
To start at the beginning, it would be fair to ask why the airport protesters were charged at all. In this situation, even where a political protest allegedly breaks the law, charging people doesn't serve anyone's best interests. If those charged are convicted, and that could be a very big if, they will face a nominal penalty, if any at all. Others in this situation in the past have been convicted and discharged, albeit only after a court process that served only to generate even more anger than the circumstances that led to the offending.
It is also worth noting that the law allows for people who have earned criminal prosecution to be released with a pre-charge warning. That process, which is used in Kaitaia on a regular basis, sees people who have behaved much more badly than Mr Clarke spend a brief period in custody before being sent home. That provision could have been adopted with the airport arrestees without endangering civilisation as we know it.
Mr Clarke's refusal to comply with the law might also be considered in light of the experience so far of the others who were arrested. They have made two court appearances in Kaitaia, and have been treated with nothing but respect. The process they are complying with might be distasteful to them, but they cannot complain, and are not complaining, that they have encountered anything but a degree of deference that would not have been seen in the past.
The bigger issue is the degree to which Mr Clarke can thumb his nose at the law before real damage is done. Some see him as a hero, others see him as behaving according to type. Neither camp is likely to change their minds as a result of whatever happens in the weeks and months to come, but the law will not be denied. It will win, whatever Mr Clarke does or doesn't do.
It is worth remembering that all he has to do to have his pension restored is make an appearance before the court. There is no compulsion for him to admit the charge. He will not even be obliged to enter any plea at all. Refusal to do so, or to recognise the court, would be taken as a denial, and he would be in the same situation as the others who were arrested, with the opportunity to make his case for dismissal.
He has no defence for his current actions, however, in his claims that the history of the airport land absolves him of any wrongdoing. Every court sitting is attended by individuals who are charged with significantly more heinous offences than trespass, and who believe they should not be there.
The whole point of the court process is to decide what actually happened in any situation giving rise to charges, and if we are to have the right to argue that we should not have been charged in the first place without appearing before a judge we will have no judicial system at all.
The place for Mr Clarke to argue whether he should have been charged is the District Court. He will not have the opportunity to argue his case until that happens, and it will happen one day, with or without his co-operation.
Meanwhile it is specious for Mr Clarke to say he is taking his stand in the interests of thousands of other pensioners, Maori and Pakeha, who might find themselves in his situation in the future. The only New Zealanders, pensioners or otherwise, who need fear losing their taxpayer-funded income are those who ignore warrants to arrest.
This saga might not end when Mr Clarke finally makes a court appearance, as he will, one way or the other, however. Sooner or later he will be arrested and placed before the court, at which point he will presumably be offered bail. His fellow arrestees are currently on bail, the only condition, to which they have agreed, being that they do not go to Kaitaia airport unless it is for some valid reason, which presumably means catching a flight or arriving on one.
It would be open to the court to remand Mr Clarke at large, but if that is not the case he could take his protest further by refusing to sign a bail bond. If he does that the process will have no option but to place him in custody, lifting what is already something of a farce to a whole new level.
No one, apart from some of the more rabid contributors to various Facebook pages, wants to see Mr Clarke in a prison cell, but that will be the inevitable outcome if he continues to resist the court. That would be more than unfortunate. This mole hill is rapidly becoming a mountain, and only Mr Clarke can reverse that. He should appear in court, plead not guilty and argue his case that he should never have been charged.
The writer is prepared to wager a modest sum that that approach would result in the charge being dismissed, while standing on a principle that has no foundation can only harm Mr Clarke, his cause, and most importantly the integrity of the justice system.
That justice system might not be perfect but it is the only one we have, and must be recognised by all New Zealanders. Given what has happened since September's arrests Mr Clarke can have every confidence that he will receive a fair hearing, and that is all anyone can ask. The ball is in his court.
