find the latest legal job
Part Time Risk & Compliance Officer
Category: Other | Location: Brisbane QLD 4000
· Brisbane City · Flexible Part Time Hours
View details
Infrastructure Lawyer/SA
Category: Construction Law | Location: Sydney CBD, Inner West & Eastern Suburbs Sydney NSW
· Global elite law firm · Dedicated Infrastructure team
View details
Property Lawyer
Category: Property Law | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· 12 Month Contract · Diverse Work
View details
Family Lawyer
Category: Family Law | Location: Eastern Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Boutique Firm · Great Reputation
View details
Infrastructure Lawyers
Category: Construction Law | Location: All Perth WA
· We'd be particularly interested to hear from you if you were a lawyer who knows your way around the infrastructure and energy sectors.
View details
Anti-bikie laws erode public rights

Anti-bikie laws erode public rights

Inadequate public consultation on tough new anti-bikie laws will push Queensland into a dangerous era of "McCarthyism", writes Tim Meehan, and could impact on the livelihoods of innocent people…

Inadequate public consultation on tough new anti-bikie laws will push Queensland into a dangerous era of "McCarthyism", writes Tim Meehan, and could impact on the livelihoods of innocent people

There are serious questions around a state government decision to deny the general public any consultation on the new anti-bikie gang laws, with the draft legislation going only to key law, justice and civil liberties bodies for comment.

As a criminal defence lawyer I have serious concerns about elements of the proposed legislation, especially the idea of anti-association orders for gang members which could effectively impact on members of the public.

Any law which even suggests a guilt by association measure is a radical and worrying erosion of the public's rights. At the very least, members of the public should have a right to express their views on a law that could treat them on the same level as terrorists. If the public is to be ignored, then criminal defence lawyers need to be their voice and speak for them, because defence lawyers would be the people they would turn to if charged under this legislation.

The state's headlong rush to enact laws against so-called outlaw motorcycle gangs smacks of political manoeuvring - exploiting the politics of fear and a state government showing its "get tough on crime" stance in order to appease voters.

Unless the legislation is thoroughly examined and debated, there is a real risk it could contain loopholes which could penalise innocent members of the community.

There is a real fear that elements of the draft legislation could effectively criminalise mere association with a motorcycle gang member, rather than any active participation, membership, or involvement with gangs.

Despite assurances that law-abiding members of the public have nothing to fear, these laws take us closer to a state in which you could be regarded as a criminal merely for having contact with so-called outlaw bikers, rather than actually committing any criminal act.

This substantially redefines the principles of criminal liability and the reality of kneejerk laws such as this is that once you start tinkering with the legislation, it becomes a vote-catching process.

The erosion of the public's rights, once started, can quickly accelerate because police will argue they need more powers to pursue criminal organisations, because, inevitably, laws such as these will drive criminal organisations deeper underground and have a reverse effect on policing and law enforcement.

Any change to criminal laws needs to be thought through, because changing the law in a knee-jerk fashion can set up a whole raft of unforeseen problems that could adversely affect innocent people. There is a real risk anyone who rides a motorbike will be labelled a bikie.

If you single out a specific group and label them and anyone associated with them as outlaws, it fosters the sort of environment which encourages McCarthyism.

McCarthyism is the term for making unsubstantiated accusations against people without proper regard for evidence. The term is named for 1940s and 1950s' Communist witch-hunt American senator Joseph McCarthy.

The McCarthy era of obsessively hunting for "Reds under the beds" spawned a mindset of attributing a group of society's ills to a perceived section of the populace, without regard for the facts.

This is not about defending the rights of bikie gangs - it's about protecting innocent members of the community who could find themselves swept up in some witch-hunt against anyone who rides a motorbike.

There are legitimate and law-abiding clubs of motorcycle enthusiasts. How will an anti- bikie gang law differentiate between these enthusiasts and the target gangs?

Anti-bikie laws such as anti-association and anti-fortification laws only complicate the issue. How do you legally define a "bikie gang" for terms of an anti-association law, without in effect saying that any and all groups of motorcycle enthusiasts cannot associate in a group environment?

Could the laws be circumvented if the bikies switched to cars? It sounds ridiculous, but the wording of a law can be crucial to whether it can be enforced.

And if you include car groups, does this then outlaw innocent car enthusiast groups? Law changes have consequences and these need to be thought through.

Many people own high-performance motorcycles but are not members of gangs, yet they have their bikes serviced at legitimate businesses run by gang members.

Under the new laws, would it be illegal for someone to take their bike to a business run by a gang member and be deemed to be associating with them? And, if so, could the business owner then sue the government for lost business?.

Or, if a motorbike gang member took his bike to a business run by a non-gang person for servicing or repair, would it mean the person doing the work would be regarded as associating with an illegal organisation?

These are the sorts of issues about which the government needs the feedback from the public, not just professional groups.

I wonder whether a law which bans fortifications could backfire on the government because many homeowners in Queensland employ some form of security fortification around their homes?

Would an anti-fortification law mean homeowners have to remove security screens and bars from their windows and doors if the person living there is somehow regarded to be a member of or associating with outlaw gangs? That's the sort of unexpected side effect that could evolve from a hastily conceived law.

You can expect the new laws to be tested in the courts. Existing police powers are sufficient to deal with gang issues and passing tough new legislation will not in itself solve the problem.

Imposing orders which restrict where someone can go or who they can associate with - even if they have no criminal conviction - is quite scary and the opposite of what Queenslanders take for granted as their rights in a democratic society.

Eroding the public's rights is bad for Queensland.

Tim Meehan is a Brisbane criminal defence lawyer and CEO of Ryan and Bosscher Lawyers

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Anti-bikie laws erode public rights
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Nov 17 2017
It's time for politicians to commit to eradicating domestic violence
The national shame of domestic violence cannot be left unaddressed, writes Christine Smyth. ...
Nov 16 2017
From lawyer in law firm to senior governance professional
Promoted by Governance Institute of Australia As a law graduate, Kate Griffiths never imagined...
marriage equality
Nov 16 2017
Legislation the next hurdle for marriage equality
Lawyers have underscored the importance of ensuring same-sex marriage legislation does not limit ant...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...