Effectiveness of Queensland's Anti-bikie Laws: Fact or Furphy
Monday 1 September 2014 @ 11.17 a.m. | Crime | Legal Research
As the Brisbane Times reports, while the Queensland Government is not saying anything about the High Court challenge to its "anti-bikie laws", it is claiming that the challenged laws have led to a dramatic drop in crime. A claim that some might argue is more apparent than real or more furphy than fact.
Birth and Background of the Anti-bikie Laws
The "anti-bikie laws" were introduced last October 2013 to form the centre-piece of a Queensland government law and order push after a public brawl involving dozens of bikie gang members erupted in a Gold Coast restaurant and spilled onto the street. The laws were introduced by the State’s Liberal National Party government causing controversy because critics felt that they eroded rights to free speech, freedom of association and the right to remain silent.
The three key pieces of legislation involved are the:
- Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (QLD) (the VLAD Act);
- Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2013 (Qld) (the COD Act); and
- Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013 (QLD) (the COD Amendment Act).
The VLAD Act provided that anyone convicted of committing a declared serious offence while a “participant” in an association (including taking part in one event), will be found to be a “vicious lawless associate” - unless they can prove that the association does not have the purpose of “engaging in, or conspiring to engage in, declared offences.” A finding of association produces severe punishment, namely long jail sentences and denial of bail and subsequently parole.
The COD Act and the COD Amendment Act created a mechanism to prosecute individuals for the crime of "meeting in public with others". The COD Acts provide that any person who is a “participant” in a “criminal organisation” and is “knowingly present” in a “public place” with two or more other such participants commits an offence for which the minimum penalty is six months imprisonment and the maximum is three years.
As we have previously reported, (see Constitutional Challenge to QLD Bikie Laws in High Court) a High Court challenge to the above laws is being funded by the United Motorcycle Council (the UMC) and is set down for hearing in Brisbane this week (on the 2nd and 3rd September 2014). The challenge to the VLAD Act is being made on behalf of 17 motorcycle gangs.
Why the High Court Challenge Goes Beyond Queensland
As the Brisbane Times further reports, the Attorneys-General from five other Australian state and territory governments and the Commonwealth are on record as backing the legislation, which those who oppose it say undermines the integrity of the courts and denies freedom of speech and natural justice.
As The Conversation reports:
"Despite the High Court’s preparedness to hear a challenge to the bikie laws' validity, almost all other Australian states are poised to roll our similar legislation to Queensland’s. This may represent a turning point in Australian criminal law."
The Brisbane Times reports Queensland Premier Campbell Newman as refusing to comment on the case when asked about it on Sunday because the case was before the courts, however, the Premier is reported as saying that:
" . . . crime had dropped dramatically in Queensland under his government thanks in part to its 'strong laws" against sexual predators and criminal gangs . . . It hasn't happened in any other state, it's happened in Queensland because we believe in making this the safest place in Australia to raise a family."
Is the Premier's Claim for the Anti-bikie Laws Effectiveness Correct?
In an article written for The Conversation, Assistant Professor, Criminology at Bond University, Terry Goldsworthy writes:
"There has been a concerning failure of the VLAD laws to illustrate the criminal enterprise taking place within the gangs. Senior police struggle to provide any correlational evidence linking OMCGs [Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs] to the epicentre of organised crime. Rather, they are just bit players – like many other criminal gangs."
Agreeing with the Australian Crime Commission, Assistant Professor Goldsworthy makes the point that bikies are just "one part" of the organised crime picture in Australia.
He further illustrates this point by referring to a recent estimate hearings where the Queensland Premier Mr Newman admitted that only 11 bikies (or 1%) out of 1,113 criminal gang participants had been charged under the provisions of the VLAD laws as having conducted criminal activity on behalf of the gangs. He continues that:
". . .after eight months of the crackdown, the share of organised crime offences – drug production, trafficking, supply, extortion, fraud and money laundering – was only 8.2% of total charges. But of more concern is that the [Strategic Monitoring Team] SMT in April noted that approximately 8% of the charges laid during the bikie crackdown had failed to reach a successful prosecution".
Associate Professor Goldsworthy concludes that recent decreases in crime were not linked to the so called "bikie war". He states that attempts by politicians to link the "bikie war" to reductions in general crime categories do not bear up to his examination of five months of police data covering the period January 2013 to May 2013. The data examined was for the Gold Coast and Logan areas, which reveal almost no bikie involvement in these crime categories, and these figures were before the bikie crackdown, when bikie activity could be expected to show higher levels of criminality.
In fact, police data, says Assistant Professor Goldsworthy:
". . . shows that crime was already decreasing in Queensland in the 12 months prior to the introduction of the bikie laws. Also, despite claims of an 11% decrease in crime in Queensland, media and academics identified that the actual reduction in crime for 2013-14 was only 2%".
Were the New Laws Needed?
Many argue that, despite the claims to the contrary, all of the results of crackdown could have been achieved without any of the so called "bikie laws". The bikie laws are punitive laws giving police no new investigative powers. Something Assistant Professor Goldsworthy states:
". . . was proven when police rolled out a number of operations in early 2014 to give impact to the bikie war. Most operations were not bikie-related. They all achieved their outcomes without relying on the legislation passed for the bikie crackdown. Two of them [the operations] began more than a year before the bikie crackdown".
What if the High Court Overturns the Laws
If the UMC wins its challenge in the High Court, it will not be a first for the controversial laws introduced by the Queensland government. As recently as December 2013, the state's Court of Appeal ruled invalid laws giving the state attorney-general power to keep sex offenders behind bars indefinitely. Given the support the Queensland Government has from the other states and territories and from the Federal Government, even if the laws are overturned, it will no doubt look to reintroduce rather than abandon them, even though, as can be demonstrated, the laws may not be as effective or needed as the politicians and police may claim them to be.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
