A disgruntled ratepayer who sparked a bomb scare at Whakatāne District Council after abandoning a suitcase inside its office doors last year has been fined, but will not have to compensate the council for thousands of dollars in lost productivity.

Ōhope man Gordon Dickson appeared in the Whakatāne District Court on Wednesday for sentencing on a charge of wasting police time, having been found guilty following a defended hearing.

He was fined $1000 plus court costs but Judge Paul Geoghegan said he could not order the $7600 reparation sought to compensate the council for the two hours of productivity lost when staff evacuated the building on May 24, 2025

The judge agreed with Dickson’s lawyer, Leonard Hemi, that under current legislation, it was not possible to make such an order with the loss of productivity – rather than loss of property – not coming within the bounds of reparation in the Sentencing Act.

Although the council still had to pay its workers, despite not getting any output, this did not fit within the definition of loss under the act.

“I am satisfied that I would be stretching the law beyond reasonable bounds by imposing it (reparation) – even though I am sorely tempted,” he said.

“It is unfortunate that ratepayers who had nothing to do with this will bear this loss.

Police had sought reparation on behalf of the council with the $7600 request based on 100 staff at an average hourly rate of $38 not being able to work for two hours.

With this unable to be awarded, the police prosecutor enquired about emotional harm reparation

Of the 100 staff affected by Dickson’s actions, he said there was “emotional harm” and it would not be difficult to get some of the council managers to collect statements their staff.

However, Judge Geoghegan said the victim in this case was the council, not the workers, and a council could not suffer emotional harm.

Dickson was initially charged with wasting police time and trespass after he slipped a red suitcase through the automatic doors of the council office in Commerce Street, prompting the evacuation of the building and the summonsing of the bomb squad.

He had found the suitcase next to a bin at Maraetotara Reserve in Ōhope 10 days earlier and, thinking it could result in other people dumping their rubbish there, took it to the council, whose responsibility he considered it was to pick it up.

In a reserved decision reached following a defended hearing conducted over two days in November and December, Judge Geoghegan said he was satisfied that Dickson intended to waste police time and resources and found him guilty.

On the charge of trespass, Dickson was found not guilty, with the judge finding the trespass notice issued by the council to be “unreasonable, artibrary and unlawful”.

At Wednesday’s sentencing, Hemi asked that Dickson be convicted and discharged, describing it as a case of him “cashing in his chips” after 50 years of being a positive and contributing member of society.

Although Dickson had got himself into some difficulty in his behaviour with the council, he had a long history of being a law-abiding member of society.

Hemi said Dickson has already suffered “considerable harm”.

However, Judge Geoghegan said this harm was all a result of his actions; natural consequences.

In an affadavit presented at sentencing, Dickson outlined his circumstances and Judge Geoghegan accepted

that Dickson had suffered consequences as a result of the conviction, including loss of professional standing, loss of reputation and loss of his firearms licence.

But, he said those were normal conseqences of a conviction and the affadavit sounded like a denial of responsibility.

“Your affadavit appears to portray your actions as innocent and unintentional, but I do not agree with that protrayal,” said Judge Geoghegan.

“I saw a calculated move on your part to achieve exactly what you achieved. This wasn’t some innocent return of council property; this was carefully calculated.

“The people who suffer at the hands of this sort of action are ratepayers that have nothing to do with your feud with the council,” he said.

He said Dickson was an intelligent man who had clearly reached the view that the council was failing in its duty to ratepayers and developed considerable antaganism toward the council, which he had earlier demonstrated at a council meeting.

But, he said Dickson’s clean history was a credit to him, and he had clearly contributed to the community.