Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

(NSW) New Bikie Laws

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Lucius, Apr 2, 2009.

  1. Looks like NSW is getting bikie laws simlar to those in SA......

    NSW rushes in bikie law
    Andrew Clennell and Alexandra Smith (SMH.com.au)
    April 2, 2009

    NSW Premier Nathan Rees introduced his anti-bikie legislation into the legislative assembly today.

    He told parliament: "The legislation is a proportionate response to an escalation in violence [involving] outlaw motorcycle gangs.''

    He said "sensibly and prudently'' the Bill had been subject to advice from the Solicitor-General and he had been assured it would not be able to be successfully challenged in the High Court.

    "Ten days ago bikie gangs crossed the line,'' he said of the attack at Sydney Airport in which Anthony Zervas was killed.

    "Since then there have been frequent shootings in public streets.

    "These are tough and well constructed laws. They aim to give no second chance to those [who are part] of an illegal gang.''

    The laws would allow the police commissioner to go to the Supreme Court to apply for control orders against the members of gangs which had been declared illegal.

    The surprise move comes just two days after he warned the laws might not be in place until June.

    But it is understood that several ministers, including the Deputy Premier, Carmel Tebbutt, raised concerns in cabinet about introducing the legislation so quickly, but a source quoted the Premier as saying: "What if someone else gets shot before we push these through?"

    The laws passed a special caucus meeting this morning following last night's cabinet meeting.

    Under the new laws, members of gangs who associate with each other after their gang is declared a "criminal organisation" by a Supreme Court judge would be charged immediately. They would face at least two years in jail and would not have any warnings before being charged.

    Mr Rees announced the laws on Sunday but immediately warned that he did not want to introduce them until he could be confident they would not face a High Court challenge, which is under way in South Australia.

    The laws are likely to face opposition in caucus this morning. Some MPs are worried that the laws are too draconian and would unfairly find people guilty by association.

    One MP warned the bill would not win the support of caucus unless significant changes were made. "The bill was modelled on the South Australian bill and it does have some constitutional problems. I don't know how that is being sorted out in NSW," the MP said.

  2. guilt by association is going to hugely abused.

    imagine if the police want to arrest and charge someone on unrelated matters. does the suspect know someone in an "outlawed organisation" ?

    how hard would it be to claim that a suspect is also a member of that organisation. what is the level of proof?

    is there any reassurance that is legislation is only to combat "bikie gangs"?

    i think not.
  3. it going to get way out of hand, if this law were in place when the whole "bra boys" saga was happening they could have easily been declared an "outlaw gang" as this would look great in the media. from that point on these laws would apply to anyone belonging to that gang.

    Goal time for being friends in a group...
  4. would they be able to use the same laws to arrest people at an organised protest?

    imo this is one of the stupidest pieces of legistlation Labour has put through since Iemma started (ie. the only piece). now you and your mate can get arrested jailed for showing the same tat while sharing a beer.

    I would consider the police to be patch wearing affiliates.
  5. NOW do people see why this this country (and every country) needs a bill of rights?

    Scenario: The premier calls a supreme court judge and says "I have information that a group of people known to challenge the law are exchanging notes and information via the internet. I think they need to be stopped. "
    The judge (who may have had a few sherries that nigh, who knows) say, "Well, you know better than me. OK."
    Break of dawn next morning PC Plod breaks down YOUR door, strongarms you into the van and you don't see daylight for two years.
    Netrider has been declared a criminal organisation. That's all it would take.

    Now does that sound like a good idea?
  6. i'm more than happy for them to keep shooting each other....let god sort em out.

    but this legislation is utter crap
  7. stupid law, keep them inside the circle, with the new laws they will go underground and they wont know who is who
  8. See here: - http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/383d6b6a0233c80dca25758c0000d70b/$FILE/crimes.pdf

    Sorry - the forum won't let me post the propper link.
    MOD: I can
    Regardless of how you feel about the "Bikie" culture, this is terrifying legislation. Here's just a few snippits:-

    - Part 2, Clause 6 - enables the Commissioner of Police to apply for a declaration
    - Part 2, Clause 8 - gives the persons referred to in the application the right to be present at and make submission to the hearing UNLESS information to be disclosed at the hearing involves 'Criminal Intelligence'
    - Part 2, Clause 13 - provides that the rules of evidence do not apply to the hearing & that a Judge presiding is not required to give any reason for making the declaration
    - Part 3, Clause 14 - Provides that an interim order may be made in the absence of and without notice to the person/organisation concerned
    - Part 4, Clause 34 - Provides immunity from civil and criminal laibility for persons exercising functions under the proposed Act and for the Crown.

    Just stop and think about what this potentially could mean. Any group, deemed to (not proved to, deemed to) by Police to be for the purpose of orgainising, facilitating, planning, supporting or engaging in serious criminal activity can be declared by a judge, without the Crown having to notify the person/association, without the need to supply any evidence to the accused to support such a declaration. The activity alleged by the Police doesn't even need to happen within NSW.

    The supposed "safeguards" appear to be limited to Senior Police making a declaration verifying teh contents of the declaration (Part 3, Clause 14).

    This is Fascism - this is not protecting freedom, this is lazy government and lazy policing. l'm pretty sure there are already laws prohibiting persons from bashing peoples heads in, or shooting each other. You've got to really ask who benefits from this legislation being enacted? Certainly not the public, there are already laws protecting the public, so who benefits?
  9. nomore Iemma but Reece and Liberal Opposition Barry O'fatroll says he would have rushed in these laws even faster, only the greens and independant Clover moore didnt vote it in.

    I guess all bikies will have to wear this patch from now on

  10. That link doesn't work anymore - further if i type the name of the bill (Criminal Organisations Control Bill) into google i dont get any links to documents that list the particulars of the bill.

    How did you get to that particular pdf?
  11. And of course, the addition of Conroy's morality filter will make it easier to trace all this.

    For the ability to filter content, you also acquire the ability to log. Once you log, you can report.

    Religious conservatives or not, but these acts are all being created and imposed by labour governments.

    One difference from left and right wing governments is that 'liberal' conservatives believe in small government, with minimal oversight and regulation. Left leaning tend to be the other way.
  12. 1st S.A introduces the laws then NSW suddenly decides there urgently needed to control the big bad bikies, how long till other states now suddenly find a urgent need for similar laws the second the media creates a crisis, soon the need for proper policework will be a thing of history with laws of convenience all the rage for quick political mileage as the pollies wish to be seen as on top of problems at all of our expense.

    rant over
  13. This was sent to me from MCC NSW today. Maybe it could be of use for you in NSW...

  14. Over reaction.

    I don't know where everyone has been, but the police have had the power to arrest anyone on a suspicion for the last several hundred years.

    They can arrest you, take you to the lock up, question you, and if the public prosecutor thinks you have a case to answer you will be charged, brought before a magistrate, and either held in custody, or given bail. And if it goes to court, you will either be freed, or get found guilty of the charge, and sentenced to a whole range of penalties.

    That is nothing new at all about that.

    Or does everyone like having ruthless criminal gangsters dressing up like they are just harmless hog riders but are roaming the streets like its their personal battleground?

    I hope they make the one percenters 0%.
  15. Re: Over reaction.

    When you were writing that, did it not occur to you at any time, that if the laws exist to lock someone up for suspicion and have done so for 'hundred of years' (unlikely as the concept of a police force didn't occur till the mid 19c), then why do we need a new law that proscribes and organisation and can jail people for 2yrs for associating within that organisation.

    You have just written that the current laws, if properly enforced are more than adequate.

    This law will not stop gang members from shooting each other. Good old fashioned police work will. But that isn't the quick fix so beloved of governments who are unwilling to invest in proper policing and resource crime depts correctly.

    Look what happened the day after the murder. Rees more than doubled the size of the team. That will probably make the difference, but if gang violence was so bad before, why did it take a murder for the correct funding to take place.

    In Victoria, good old fashioned police work was used to break up the violence between the crime gangs. Because of that, real criminals will serve real jail time. But I am sure it won't be long before Brumby has to be seen to be doing 'something'.

    I am stunned that you are happy for a significant change in law to be passed that:

    1. Won't solve any issue
    2. Can be easily abused
    3. Removes some fundamental freedoms

    All because it doesn't affect you. Today.
  16. Re: Over reaction.

    the problem is they allready have search and seizure, phone taping , and many other tools at there disposal and this has been said by the Victoria head cop and minister they the laws are in place and at there disposal.
    The problem with SAPOL and others is that the laws require some PROOF before they can be used or tools obtained .
    you cant just tap a phone on suspision and there has to be some evidence to warrant it .
    The just cant walk up to a building and go "i think theres drugs in there" and search until they find at least one thing against the law.
    under the current system they need some kind of proof , evidence of some sort to get a warrant to search .
    They have to justify it , these laws in SA and NSW is lazy laws .

    imagine wants going to happen too you if you were banging a coppers daughter and split up with her , especially with these laws
    gutanamo bay here you come ........................................... :grin: