It will be about the only worthwhile and socially responsible thing they’ve ever done.

I don’t think I need to continue.

“A state may be ruled by (measures of) correction; weapons of
war may be used with crafty dexterity; (but) the kingdom is made one’s
own (only) by freedom from action and purpose.
.
How do I know that it is so? By these facts:–In the kingdom the
multiplication of prohibitive enactments increases the poverty of the
people; the more implements to add to their profit that the people
have, the greater disorder is there in the state and clan; the more
acts of crafty dexterity that men possess, the more do strange
contrivances appear; the more display there is of legislation, the
more thieves and robbers there are.”
—–
Collateral damage amongst the ‘innocent’ (naive?) seems always the most common outcome of ‘wars’ declared.

Like the next poor schmuck to get busted here at a G-20 Summit, or perhaps some Planet Warrior banged-up for protesting a bit too vigourously at Gunns’ latest outrage. Whatever. But please, whatever you do, don’t nail the colours to the mast of one of the biggest criminal enterprises currently operating in the country and then expect all and sundry to salute. Ain’t gonna happen.

“Saving the Bikies” just hasn’t got the traction, I’m afraid.

You’re not paying attention. We already have laws for dealing with bikies and organised crime. These new laws will be applied to anyone and everyone, are odious, poorly designed and will not solve the underlying problem.

You indirectly hit on the best and most important reform in talking about Chicago during the 30s. That was the time of the Prohibition.

But I also like living in a society where we don’t have a criminal bikie underworld running a nationwide drugs manufacturing business and “rubbing-out” the competition (and anyone who looks like squealing on them) like it was Chicago, circa 1930.

These guys are bad news. They’re the worst kind of criminal scum. And I for one won’t be shedding too many tears if these laws are used to crush them.

Misuse of such laws is another matter.

If and when the coppers start using such laws to try and stomp-out political protests and discourse or to lock people-up for reading the wrong newspaper or for eating their ice-cream the wrong way or whatever, I’ll join you lot on the barricades.

But until then, I’m buggered if I will stand shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of crims such as these and protest their right to get-on about their business without this sort of legislation. They don’t give a toss about civil liberties. To them, this legislation is just a bit of unwarranted interference in the free market.

The free drugs market, that is.

It’s just that if, having been told that a control order might be made against you, you choose not to attend and be heard, then they can proceed without you.

What if like many people changing address, a person never receives the letter BBB? What if your name goes on the shit list by mistake? What if a person with a grudge manufactures evidence against you, (that you belong to such a criminal organisation) and gives it to police, who use it secretly against you in a proceeding that you’re unaware of?

Normal procedure in NSW if not arrested and charged and granted bail to appear, punters get a CAN (court attendance notice) and the penalty for non appearance is a s196 conviction AND s25(2) bench warrant to force attendance. If there’s a reasonable excuse for non attendance, the conviction can be quashed.

Under this new regime, a person could have a control order imposed and be unaware and I rather suspect that’s what the State government’s want: ambush, and too late to defend, and how can it be properly defended when the defence is hamstrung without the Evidence Act and a right of cross examination???

Under this legislation, the right to cross examine the witness ie Commissioner or other officers, on what is secret evidence, is removed because the Evidence Act is explicitly held not to apply. That’s simply wrong because who guards the guardian?–how can we be sure that the Commissioner is not putting porkies into his affidavit? Does this legislation contemplate our Judges becoming inquisitorial, in place of the adversarial system? I rather doubt it. It’s designed simply to “convict” in absentia for the so called crime of association.

To be clear: in this case the right to be present is not infringed. The person concerned must be told of the place and time at which the hearing is to be conducted. It’s just that if, having been told that a control order might be made against you, you choose not to attend and be heard, then they can proceed without you. It makes sense on a purely technical level: you shouldn’t be able to avoid a control order merely by refusing to participate in proceedings. Still, as a whole these laws cannot be described as anything other than deeply objectionable.

BBB

Id agree with that up to a point. The chaps involved wont go straight, theyd just increase their presence in things like robberies, prostitution, and trafficking in any other thing that was banned.

That was broadly the experience with the Mafia in the USA, but remember that in the US gambling is restricted in most states and prostitution is illegal. This leaves the other classic money spinners open.

In Australia gambling and prostitution are legal country wide with varying levels of regulation. Depending on the jurisdiction, these industries are more or less law-abiding.

That leaves classic standovers, loan sharking and protection rackets, which still violent and antisocial, are much less dangerous to the integrity of the social fabric than illegal drugs. Drug profits are insanely higher, and apart from turf wars, much personally safer than old fashioned organised crime.

I agree that some people are simply sociopaths and will always seek means to power, but that doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to make it easier for them*.

* Incidentally this is another argument for limiting the size and power of the state.

http://macquariestreet.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/bikie-laws-a-closer-look/

Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Incorporated v Commissioner of Police[2008] HCA 4

(Kirby at 50, 51 etc, in dissent)

In deciding these questions, this Court is called upon, once again, to consider the ambit of the constitutional principle which it established in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)[35]. That principle[36]:

“forbids attempts of State Parliaments to impose on courts, notably Supreme Courts, functions that would oblige them to act in relation to a person ‘in a manner which is inconsistent with traditional judicial process’[37]. It prevents attempts to impose on such courts ‘proceedings [not] otherwise known to the law’, that is, those not partaking ‘of the nature of legal proceedings’[38]. It proscribes parliamentary endeavours to ‘compromise the institutional impartiality’ of a State Supreme Court[39]. It forbids the conferral upon State courts of functions ‘repugnant to judicial process’[40].”

Experience teaches that governments and parliaments in Australia occasionally attempt “to spend the reputational currency of the independent courts in the pursuit of objectives which legislators deem to be popular”[41]. They sometimes seek to cloak their decisions “in the neutral colors of judicial action”[42]. Novel arrangements are then introduced into the law that impinge on the “judicial process”. When challenged, such arrangements should be the subject of strict scrutiny.

Hear hear, but I’m not holding my breath for the HCA to apply the Kable v DPP principles against the NSW government.

What I find particularly disturbing is in the NSW legislation:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/coca2009391/s19.html
CRIMES (CRIMINAL ORGANISATIONS CONTROL) ACT 2009 – SECT 19

(3) In considering whether or not there are sufficient grounds to make the control order in relation to the person, the Court is to take into account:
(a) the affidavit from the Commissioner, or affidavits from one or more other senior police officers, that verified the contents of the application for the interim control order concerned, and
(b) the affidavit provided by the person with the notice of objection referred to in section 16, and
(c) any other information provided by the Commissioner or person to whom the order relates at the hearing.

s 20 “The person to whom the control order relates may appear at the hearing of the application and make submissions in relation to the application” Cripes, for a moment I thought I was in a middle ages Star Chamber time warp, but hey no the legislation contemplates a control order without the “accused” being present:
s19(4) “The control order may be made whether or not the person concerned is present at the hearing of the application.”

“Trial” in absentia–now that’s procedural fairness (not)
All that guff about affidavits suggests to me that the right of cross examination by an “accused” is absent. This appears to be worse than DOCS cases–at least there is a right of cross examination in those proceedings, but damnation,I forgot: you can’t see the intellegence “report” cos that would identify the source and that’s public interest indemnity, the “defence” might find out it’s a load of cobblers, and that wouldn’t do either for DOCs matters or these!

So, the Commissioner can write down all his secret reports from “Police Intelligence” (I submit from time to time a contradiction in terms, I digress)on a piece of paper and present it as evidence for the annointed ones to contemplate for “proscribing” an organisation or issuing a control order. That’s hearsay evidence btw, just like the admissability of hearsay evidence in the Children and Young Persons Protection Act proceedings.

Uh oh: s13 (1) “The rules of evidence do not apply to the hearing of an application for a declaration under this Part.” Worse than I thought.

Summary: Prima facie it’s much worse than Star Chambers. (I just hope that the Department of Community Services doesn’t get any funny ideas about wanting this sort of power and presenting hearsay “evidence” in secret.)

Kiss goodbye to transparency, procedural fairness, the Evidence Act etc etc and JUSTICE.

I knew someone would ping me on the coppers, point taken, I should have added that little appendum myself..lol.

Id agree with that up to a point. The chaps involved wont go straight, theyd just increase their presence in things like robberies, prostitution, and trafficking in any other thing that was banned.

Drug prohibition increases their profits massively, no doubt, but theyd quickly restart (on a larger scale) fraud, insurance, and standover scams to compensate.
The attraction isnt the drugs, its the money, the same people will still be looking for easy money, and the application of indiscriminate violence will still be their tatic of choice.

However (you knew that was coming didnt you), the police are at a significant handicap for one major reason.

They cant inflict beatings, hopitalise people or summarily execute people whom they dislike or feel are infringing on their “turf”. The bikies can.

They can’t do so legally, at any rate. Contact with police increases your probability of unnatural death.

If politicians were serious about disrupting organised crime of all varieties, they would legalise marijuana, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy; indeed any such mind-altering substance.

Cut out the massive profits from drug money and at a stroke you eliminate turf wars, funds for illegal weapons, the motive to engage in organised crime and the financial means to corrupt police and others.

I dislike the laws as well, as you (and others) point out, what they do is allready illegal.

However (you knew that was coming didnt you), the police are at a significant handicap for one major reason.

They cant inflict beatings, hopitalise people or summarily execute people whom they dislike or feel are infringing on their “turf”. The bikies can.
Thats a game changer, if I can kill/intimidate witnesses with impunity, then I can get away with crime. 5 years in gaol Vs beaten to death and buried in a ditch, I know which Id choose.

Im not advocating the return of a death penalty or police beatings of suspects, but it does have to be realised that “old school” law enforcement did have an underlying (distasteful) logic to it.

Whats the answer? Buggered if I know, but Id be doing my best to prosecute those supporting them. Lawyers, accountants, crooked coppers etc. That would at least make their lives a little harder.

I know the point of civil liberties groups is that they defend unpopular groups, but do they only defend exotic groups like bikers or terrorism suspects?

Where have civil liberties groups been while extraordinary powers have been used against building workers? Are ordinary workers just not interesting enough for upper-middle class lawyers?

I’m happy to stand corrected on this, but where were you when we needed you?