Ken Parish has an excellent post at Club Troppo about the excessive reach of the “anti-bikie” laws recently enacted by several state parliaments. The powers, and the lack of safeguards on using them, provided by the laws are akin to the excesses of the anti-terrorism legislation (incidentally, when is sedition going to be taken off the books, Kevin Rudd?)
Amongst other things, this act permits “eligible judges” (hand-picked by the Attorney-General of the day) to proscribe organizations based on evidence which is not disclosed to either defendants or their lawyers.
I don’t have anything to add other than thanking Ken for drawing this to our attention. Why is it that every time we turn our backs on them, police forces are forever trying to acquire more powers, and supine governments are all too eager to hand such powers to them?
I’m finding it awfully difficult to work-up a great deal of sympathetic outrage over laws designed to take-down the likes of the Hells Angels and the Bandidos. They’re clearly not what you might call model citizens.
Poor misguided fools like David Hicks are another matter, but lets not confuse the two. I don’t think David ever went-in for running meth labs or beating people to death in airport concourses. All he did was to choose to hang-out with a bunch of bearded nut-jobs and get hisself photographed holding an RPG. Stupid, but not sociopathic.
Evan, who is to say the “stupid, but not sociopathic” will not be affected by these laws?
The common thread between Hicks and these laws is that they allow severe restrictions on liberty to be imposed without due process – most notably, that the evidence for such restrictions is not disclosed to the defendant’s legal team and tested in a court of law.
That’s what they’re marketed as being for. The truth is that police always want more power. Always. And they will apply these acts to anyone they can. It’s nominally to round up bikies, but it will get used on everyone.
This is libertarianism 101: the state expands unless we fight it. It always wants to expand, it always tries to expand, it will tell any lie or exploit any situation to do so, and once granted a power will not give it up without one hell of a fight.
What amazes me is the lack of self-awareness amongst the law enforcement community about what happens when police forces get excessive powers.
There seems to be an attitude of “but we’re not like those other dodgy coppers, we’ll use any powers we’re granted responsibly” when all the evidence of history shows that police will use any powers granted to them to the full extent of what they can get away with, when the perceived need arises.
Robert — at the risk of sounding very geeky, sounds like the ages old argument between programmers of do-as-thou-wilt languages like C and whip-and-bondage languages like Haskell.
You could also thank Tigtog for getting the ball rolling, three months ago, here.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/03/24/gang-laws-dependent-on-mode-of-transport-really/
Link buggered
I’m not particularly given to conspiracy theories, but….
Anti-terrorism laws + bikie laws + secret censorship of “the tubes” = ???
Seems like a bit of an ominous pattern forming there, each case involving (a) fundamental denial of what are held to be the basic principles of law and freedom of association on which our society is nominally based.
What type of Government needs to “vanish people” arbitrarily, seeks to imprison those who would speak against it, or even to speak of their knowledge of such an event?
What type of Government needs to declare any “selected” group criminal, and subject to extraordinary sanctions ?
What type of Government needs to censor the internet, and to also censor details of what it is “blocking” ?
None of the answers I get to these questions reassure me, and while I certainly don’t think Rudd is planning to implement a totalitarian state – the questions remain.
Thing is Evan, running meth labs and beating people to death at airports are already illegal.
I appreciate you might not have realised with with all the concocted outrage being used to push through these new laws.
Likewise criminal conspiracy is also a crime, and generally good enough (with investigative work).
There’s simply no need for laws which erode everyone’s rights in the name of being ‘tough on crime’.
Mindy – indeed.
And let’s follow this law to a possible unintended consequence. What’s to stop the state government in the week before the next election locking up all their political opponents.
Unlikely yes. But doable under this law as it stands.
If the bikies haven’t done anything wrong I’m sure they have nothing to worry about.
The laws is wonderfully broad – I wonder if they could use it to arrest rush hour on the basis that it’s a large group of people gathered together who would all love to break the speed limit and do so as soon as they can? Other inane applications will no doubt follow, but the ease with which this could target protesters is a bit scary. I think the chances of it being used to target major party politicians is pretty low, but minor parties for sure. Just look at the NZ secret police files on Green Party politicians that have been dragged out recently… they had all the “evidence” they needed to lock up those people under this law.
I’ve not seen any real argument as to why these new powers are needed, and what is lacking in the current criminal justice system.
Oh and big props to Rob Hulls, for being a relatively ethical fellow, and getting things like the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities up.
We’ve already seen the slippery slope here, from terrorists to common or garden variety crims.
The secret evidence thing basically means this is no longer a free society as we have traditionally understood it in the English common law tradition. The ability of the executive to hand pick its judges is also just a little bit troubling, I’d have thought. Freedom of association was also a basic liberty when we had it, wasn’t it?
The reason the state acts this way is I think pretty simple. Politics and law enforcement are similar in that they attract good, community minded people who want to do good things for the community, and also megalomaniacs. If you love imposing your will on others, there aint no other games in town. If that’s your motivation, which career you choose depends on the scale of your ambition and whether you want the physical props of the gun and the muscle car.
Why we’ve all become so supine in the face of it would make a good book if written by someone with a brain who wasn’t pushing a party line. I think the reasons are several or even many.
I find it incomprehensible that there are not enough laws in the criminal code to prosecute people for criminal activities – whether or not they ride a motor bike, or have names of middle eastern origin – or both!
What the police forces probably haven’t been doing is collecting evidence.
Do more and coercive laws assist in that? – Problematic.
Why haven’t police been more active in their pursuit of criminal activity of motor bike gangs? Laziness? Fear? Corruption? Ineptitude? Lack of resources?
Why legislate and give more and more coercive powers to the police when they patently don’t accomplish essential and large junks of their raison d’etre?
It defies logic – unless you have another agenda – ?
Where were civil liberties groups during the Your Rights at Work campaign?
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?
brisbanedavey
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.
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.
Jacques Chester
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.
Ken Parish’s link of a recent case:
Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Incorporated v Commissioner of Police[2008] HCA 4
(Kirby at 50, 51 etc, in dissent)
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
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 wrote a post about the NSW bikie laws a few weeks ago:
http://macquariestreet.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/bikie-laws-a-closer-look/
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.
“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)”
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
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.
Principles are fine. I’m all for principles.
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.
Evan;
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.
No Jacques, you’re the one not paying attention if you think the population give a toss about what happens to bikie gangs and their members.
Look fellas, I’m with you on the civil liberties cause, I really am. But fer fuxsakes pick the “victim” on which to rally the cause with a bit more discrimination, will you? Something that’s going to resonate, that’s the ticket.
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.
Actually Evan I really think the more laws and tough talk only serves to fuel the kind of social environment that ‘bikie’ types (a simplistic generalisation?) can thrive in.
Upping the ‘ante’ only makes life more suitable for knuckleheads, the extremely devious and psychopaths, on both sides of the law.
.
Force begets force.
Action elicits reaction.
Attempts to enforce ‘order’ manifests disorder.
.
The tighter the grasping the more what you wish to hold slips between your fingers.
The complete inability of the Stasi to forsee their own demise over a period of days, despite almost impossible surveillance and widespread use of fear for decades, is a recent example of how delusional ‘social enforcement’ is in the end. With many hurt and damaged in the process.
Fear and intimidation works, until the point where it no longer does and people have nothing else left to lose.
It’s complete myth that humans can control others through orders or any means.
As long as the social contract makes life for the most part better, easier and more satisfactory, most people will buy in. When it’s not, some folks will go shopping elsewhere.
.
Old Lao Tzu got it right years ago
“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.
One can only assume that the passing of this type of legislation means that the police forces have failed, crime commissions have failed and crime legislation has failed OR we are blighted by elected representatives who are so collectively stupid historically ignorant and intellectually lazy they know not what they do. Had these buffoons had the collective will to all pass RICOH type legislation a decade ago then they would have had the laws to deal with organised criminals and other forms of racketeers, they did not. You would want to hope that bananas in pjamas don’t get accused of being a perverted criminal gang preying on children, but then you would never know would you?
Evan, to misquote slightly, “First they came for the bikies, but because I was not a bikie, I didn’t care … ”
I don’t think I need to continue.
Well at least we can all be sure that the Hells Angels have all the dosh they need to fund the inevitable High Court Challenge.
It will be about the only worthwhile and socially responsible thing they’ve ever done.
first of all. even is the most retarded person I’ve heard of in a while he obviously loves fachism and/or communism, why doesn’t he go live in china? second of all these laws are ridiculous, sign my petition http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Bikie_Laws
You make a compelling case, andy.