Surprise in legal circles when the Australian Human Rights Commission sought leave to join a High Court action next Tuesday in which the Nomads bikie club is challenging consorting laws introduced by the New South Wales government. This law is being assessed by the governments of other states and if it survives this High Court challenge there is every chance that it will be adopted on a national basis.
The Australian Human Rights Commission thinks this legislation may contravene the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. It is sufficiently concerned to present it's view in this challenge and this is causing dismay in police circles. The police see the new consorting law as a means of breaking up street gangs and bikie groups who are fast beckoning a new form of " organized crime ".
These consorting laws make it an offence for people with a criminal record to meet together on a social basis. It would ban bikie groups of more than three people from riding together on the roads, and even a birthday celebration to mark a birthday could lead to arrests if several guests were unknown to one another, but had criminal records.
It would be a handy policing tool. It would introduce a new hazard to those seeking to plan a criminal event and allow law enforcement to break up criminal groups and harass and disorganize the tight knit circles that feature prominently in the drug trade. Unfortunately, some civil liberties groups think it breaches the fundamental rights we all enjoy as Australian citizens.
The problem could be the " degree of application " of consorting laws. The intention is to target the notorious criminals who are at the centre of most crime, but once a law is in place it's reach is at the discretion of both the police and the judiciary. Do we need a law that makes it illegal for any two people - who may each have faced a minor court charge many years ago - to be arrested for consorting if they take their wives to dinner at the same restaurant ? The police would scoff and claim such an example to be ridiculous - but once a law exists - it is open to " unintended consequences " !
Purists may recall the promises made when the police were seeking to be equipped with Taser high voltage stun guns. We were told that these would only be used where they were a less lethal option than firing a police hand gun - and precisely the same review procedure as a police gun firing would follow. That hardly meshes with the experience of a drug affected student running amok on a Sydney street - who was Tasered fourteen times - and died at the scene. Many people now consider that the use of Tasers has become a preferred option to physically restraining an offender.
The fact that the Australian Human Rights Commission has elected to intervene in this High Court challenge is a sure indication that people with advanced knowledge of the law are concerned at the possible misuse of this new legislation. By voicing their concern, there is every chance that the law will be struck down, or at least codified to make sure that it does not become an instrument of oppression that strays far from it's intended targets.
By all means " Get the bad guys " ! But make sure that " checks and balances " keep " the good guys honest " !
No comments:
Post a Comment