Sooooo, the premier of QLD has introduced a heap of new laws to run bikies out of QLD. He's also having a go at kiddly fidlers as well, but im less concerned with that. Hes effectively introducing long jail sentences for any bikie convicted of a crime and trying to get bail denied for almost all crimes committed by bikies.

I was slightly infuriated tonite watching Cando (a coalition politician who i thought actually seemed ok) trying to ride roughshod over the judicial system "because its what the people of qld want". He never asked me what I want? It seems he hasnt asked anyone in the judicial system either.

Can his new laws succeed? I was speaking to a lawyer friend over the weekend and she mentioned how embarassing it was for QLD lawyer types with what Cando is trying to do. Tony Fitzgerald has come out and panned the new laws saying they will never be allowed and then today a judge has stood up and said they won't try a case because Newman has effectively told the courts what the verdict of the case should be.

I was previously happy with the level of policing over bikies. Yes im sure they are committing crimes and getting away them, as long as these crimes dont affect jo q public, im fine with that. (ie they are fighting each other) Obviously the brawl down the coast that started this all was well out of control and those involved should be dealt with (within accordance of the law), including the idiots who turned up at the police station and tried to get their buddies out. But yer, im not sure all the additonal police attention is the best use of their resources. Pretty sure there are other gangs that dont ride motorbikes that are chomping at the bit to have all these bikies out of the way so they can take up all the business oportunities.

tl;dr, has campbell lost his mind? yes, i think so;

we need someone to transport the durgs....

haha dazhel :) qld coalition knobs do have a history of loving the mandatory sentencing.

maybe they can make the bikies wear something on their jacket that identifies them as bikes - like a yellow star or something

On the one hand some of the new laws look kind of scary but on the other I am wary of getting caught up in the media's' interpretation of the law.

seems to be lots of law talking guys are coming forward to say these new laws are retarded and won't be able to be upheld or will be overturned by the courts.

He's also having a go at kiddly fidlers as well, but im less concerned with that.

That's how Governments divide the public.
They target the unpopular minority groups with Laws that will ultimately be used on the majority. Have you seen the Laws Police will have for that upcoming G20 here ?

POLICE will be granted extra powers inside a "declared area" of inner city Brisbane stretching from South Bank, to Kelvin Grove, Bowen Hills, Fortitude Valley and Wooloongabba in a bid to stop the violent chaos that has crippled other G20 host cities.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/strip-searches-approved-in-massive-police-powers-boost-for-g20-forum-in-brisbane-cbd/story-fnihsrf2-1226703817810#

back to the bikies...
Bikies should have kicked out the wankers.
Now they have no Clubs.
No matter how tough you think you are you can never take on the Government and their security forces. Its hard to shed a tear for them but really, don't Police have enough Laws already ?

What happens if these Laws are used on say, CSG demonstration groups ?
Greenpeace demonstrating against Uranium mining ?
Unions ?

I have a muso friend that knows a few members of a certain northside group.
They are shattered, they were never into the drugs etc but knew about it.
They loved Bikes and were ex-military and enjoyed the mateship, Now the guys can only meet at BBQs
at least for the moment.

Seems F***head Newman pines for a return to the days of the Police State that existed whilst Joh was Premier.

I'm not a criminal, so I have nothing to worry about from these new laws.

How quickly we forget the lessons of the past



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

I can't believe that even after a post showing concern about the new laws that people would take my post seriously. I know sarcasm can be hard on the internet but c'mon son. I guess I probably should have quoted arkter because it was him I was making fun of.

not really, 58 year old man, arrested and refused bail, he didn't leave an establishment when told to, when the police arrived he was wearing a belt buckle associated with a bikie gang.. he's facing 15 years.

Got a link for this? Not doubting you but I'd just like to read about it.

Sounds like it might actually be the 51yo from this story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-20/men-refused-bail-after-charges-laid-under-new-laws/5033772

These laws are outrageous and a complete violation of basic criminal principals and the separation of powers. I have given Campbell and my MP a fair earful about it. I am very pissed off. Mind you Labor passed similar intended laws in their last term. They are both as bad as each other.

These new laws will achieve nothing. Do they think those bikies handing in their colours are all going to uni and getting jobs as architects and nurses? There is also a toothfairy.

Bikie laws too stupid for words.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/police-warned-to-enforce-campbell-newmans-new-bikie-laws-or-face-being-fired/story-fnihsrf2-1226743468432

TWO police officers have been left red-faced after confusing a man's Sons of Anarchy T-shirt with a real bikie gang's patch in Queensland. Police saw the man's shirt, showing the insignia of the fictitious bikie gang in the popular US TV drama, during a protest at Emerald, where state cabinet is meeting. Two officers walked over and began talking to him about it but it soon dawned on them that he was just a fan of the TV show, and not a hardened bikie crim. After awkward laughter, the officers apologised and left him alone.

Case in point.

lets meet Billy

Billy is a bit silly. He loves driving around in his car listening to CDs while stoned. Unfortunately one of the CDs he has was stolen by Billy's mate as a birthday present to billy. Thanks mate!

But dont worry the cops just pulled Billy over because when he drives stoned he really is a terrible driver - like going 30 in a 60 zone - and they noticed a bag a weed in the car and the stolen CD too. Poor billy.

But dont worry because of these three things Billy is now a Vicious Lawless Associate and so is going to go to Jail for 15 years where he will learn a new profession from his new friends - being a lawless bikie

good for you Billy.

Just remember people. YOU voted for them.

Your ability to talk to him some may claim is link to family connections and party donations ... That there ain't democracy.

it was at a BBQ at which 100 other people attended. i waited in the far queue like every other mug, plus I wrote him a letter (two actually which I have received no response yet). Joe public can do either of these things.

Don't think I am anything special to him. To Campbell I am just another s***bag civil libertarian.

Nice.

Less dents under my Range Rover.

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/5058/db9h.jpg

Bound to happen.

Look at that tough mother f***** drinking that milk.Avatarworthy.

yeahhh... i still wouldn't wanna get on the wrong side of his fist..

edit: on topic: if that link about the interpretation is correct, I feel for you all.

Being tough is raising a Family and holding down a job, not riding a motorbike in a Halloween costume in some kind of forever-teenager fantasy.

breaking up these gangs might be the best thing that ever happened to some of these guys.

That's an awesome way of looking at it.

Add another five years for face tats, 3 years for bum bags.

Is it cool to wear your bumbag forward ways?

I'm back. I thought this topic would have borne more rapturous debate.

The laws are inimical to liberal democracy. The AG is under-qualified to be the first law officer. From what I am told, the 'conveyancer' nickname being given to him is apt.

The attacks on the judiciary are plain wrong. The Premier and AG are on a fools' errand if they think they can get the best of some of the finest advocates in the state.

Also, Fryberg J's nickname among some parts of the profession is Mad King George (in reference to his first name and the fact that you never know what you're going to get in his courtroom - he's brilliant, but mad as a cut snake). He is retiring next month when he reaches the statutory age of 70 so he has obviously taken the opportunity to stand up for the independence of the judiciary.

I haven't looked into these laws or anything so don't blame me for the following but this happened today to a friend of my brothers. He was in a barber shop getting a hair cut and when he was finished got taken outside by 3 cops who requested to take his shirt off so they could take pics of his tats (full sleeves, chest and back.) He is not club affiliated but rides a bike, he did not have his bike with him but they ran his car plates to find that he owned more than one bike (road and a trail), he then made some comment about the fact that the cops were in a group of 3 riding bikes and all 3 had fanny packs which under this new scheme is not allowed. They then let him go with a warning and said they will look into his situation regarding tats and his bike more closely.

So can they abuse these new rules just to enforce them on everyone else?

Newman must be a Joh love-child.

I'm not a criminal, so I have nothing to worry about from these new laws.

“The axiom 'Honest men have nothing to fear from the police' is currently under review by the Axioms Appeal Board”. — Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms

infi <3

i actually just got a boner coz we agreed on something.

if only it happened more often, because i like getting boners.

Gruen Planet had a bit of a chat about this issue in the last ep. One of the panel said something rather interesting which was: when you get a conservative government come into office and the economy is in the dumps (i dont think our economy is that bad) they often look for some way to divert attention to something else.

The best thing to divert attention is with a good war: so now we have The War on Bikies

Also it was pointed out that in actual crime figures Bikies only account for around 0.6% of all crime in QLD.

Look at that tough mother f***** drinking that milk.

Musashi product placement. Looks to be a P30. Lightweight.

...and stockpiles of DMAA

i should have been carrying that night, i don't take kindly to getting mugged off by some scum c****.

they should just release the cctv and let the media decide

not being mean, but i should have bashed him good for coming up on me like that.

last edited by trillion at 00:20:24 01/Nov/13

last edited by trillion at 00:22:20 01/Nov/13

And what is with the word 'vicious'? It is unnecessary and has the potential to prejudice juries and the public against accused.

Its almost like its deliberate...

when you get a conservative government come into office and the economy is in the dumps (i dont think our economy is that bad) they often look for some way to divert attention to something else.

I wonder why they targeted bikies? From what I recall, the bikies normally have deals with the local popo, (unlike most other gangs who typically operate underground). So i doubt its anything the police have requested. Considering they can get fired for not enforcing the bikie laws.

Interesting that the only public servants that Newman actually increased in numbers were the police, This to me sounds like a move more targeted towards the police than Bikies. An attempt to separate their external revenue streams and consolidate his power over the police? For a conservative government i guess this kinda makes sense.

The problem with this Act is that it reverses the onus of proof on a criminal charge. Criminal law jurisprudence is that the onus of proving guilt should always rest on the State.

Don't they have to prove subs (a),(b) and (c) before the reverse onus applies?

Looking at them, they seem quite hard to prove. Ie Is a participant and was doing the crime furthering the organisation....

Seems like a pretty fair law to me.

If you commit the "declared crime" with an "association", the association is deemed to be criminal in nature and thus subject to mandatory sentencing unless you can prove you are not a criminal association..How is that fair?

and to add to that, you go to a club in another state, have some drinks with mates, then return, you face arrest too, the laws are a joke

and i remember the days when infi supported the LNP come hell or high water

QPS would like you to call them before riding your motorbike to avoid getting hassled by the poh poh

You use electrified probes to get a boner?

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

I would love for the government to come for the communists, socialists and trade unionists. Extremists that need to go.

i know what the smart bikie gang should do - they should rename themselves The Sons of Anarchy. And when they get busted by the cops they can be all "what this? nah mate its a TV show u duffer"

Another toothless youtube video from anonymous that will lead to nothing. I bet the QLD gov are terrified.

If Bikies are so dangerous how come no Police Officer has so far been injured arresting them ?
It could be that the Bikies have been told not to resist and to wait for the Court challenges, but still, kind of surprising.
Of course theres been plenty of claims made in the Media about threats but so far, nothing.

Don't stop with the crazy bikie laws how about this one ?

A PHONE line to dob in hoons is set to be established in Brisbane's state electorates as the toughest anti-hooning laws in Australian history took effect in Queensland yesterday.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/east/hoonwatch-hotline-to-be-rolled-out-across-brisbane-electorates/story-fni9r0lo-1226751507970

Methinks Newman is taking somewhat of a risk in declaring war on packs of lawless bikies, being that they are reputed to have access to illegal weaponry. I'm genuinely curious as to why none of these chaps have made a move on him.

it could be the long game, make a move on him, it only re-enforces there is an issue.
dont make a move on him, and wait till they make plain stupid moves like raiding the veterans MCC (for rapport building according to the QPS) slowly get the public off side

he gets voted out in just over a years time, then target slowly all of his little business holdings scattered all over the shop, make him broke

If you're lawyers you should spend some more time learning how to interpret legislation.

You are entitled to your opinion but I really, really don't think that 'Justice Fryberg doesn't like these laws' and 'Tony Fitzgerald doesn't like them' are effective legal arguments. For you to claim to be a lawyer and then quote that rubbish it casts doubt on your claim.

Back to law school - look at the elements :

a) Prescribed offence? - dude is found with a bag of weed - satisfied.

b) Is a participant in the affairs of the association? Say, the treasurer of the organisation - satisfied. This could be difficult to prove for street or non badged members.

c) Committed the act for THE PURPOSES OFor IN THE COURSE OF participating in the affairs of the organisation - this is where it falls down.

Now, of course if the treasurer bikie gets some weed from the president and gets busted then and there, the laws apply. That's the point of the laws. They're in a criminal gang committing offences. They get punished.

But what if it's a non badged member, who has some weed at home and has very little contact with other members?

First, it will be difficult to prove he was a participant.. that may rely on some really shaky phone intercept evidence or something, or photographs of him hanging out with other members.

Secondly, it will be extremely difficult to prove he committed the offence for the purposes of participating or in the course of participating in affairs of the organisation. He committed the offence for the purposes of getting high in his own home. Unless smoking weed was some kind of initiation then it's simply not provable.

It's not committed the offence 'whilst' being a member, it committing the offence for the purposes of participating or in the course of participating.

As I said above, if some bikies and driving around as part of the gang and dealing drugs etc or whatever, then they'll get caught by the legislation. Deal with it. That's what it's designed to do.

But I really don't accept the proposition this is some super loose section which anyone riding a bike can be caught under.

Remember, this needs to be proved BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. So the evidence needs to be rock solid.

The reason Fryberg etc have an issue is due to a) the reduction of judicial discretion and b) invasive police powers.

If you're lawyers you should spend some more time learning how to interpret legislation.You are entitled to your opinion but I really, really don't think that 'Justice Fryberg doesn't like these laws' and 'Tony Fitzgerald doesn't like them' are effective legal arguments. For you to claim to be a lawyer and then quote that rubbish it casts doubt on your claim.Back to law school - look at the elements :a) Prescribed offence? - dude is found with a bag of weed - satisfied.b) Is a participant in the affairs of the association? Say, the treasurer of the organisation - satisfied. This could be difficult to prove for street or non badged members.c) Committed the act for THE PURPOSES OFor IN THE COURSE OF participating in the affairs of the organisation - this is where it falls down.Now, of course if the treasurer bikie gets some weed from the president and gets busted then and there, the laws apply. That's the point of the laws. They're in a criminal gang committing offences. They get punished.But what if it's a non badged member, who has some weed at home and has very little contact with other members?First, it will be difficult to prove he was a participant.. that may rely on some really shaky phone intercept evidence or something, or photographs of him hanging out with other members.Secondly, it will be extremely difficult to prove he committed the offence for the purposes of participating or in the course of participating in affairs of the organisation. He committed the offence for the purposes of getting high in his own home. Unless smoking weed was some kind of initiation then it's simply not provable.It's not committed the offence 'whilst' being a member, it committing the offence for the purposes of participating or in the course of participating. As I said above, if some bikies and driving around as part of the gang and dealing drugs etc or whatever, then they'll get caught by the legislation. Deal with it. That's what it's designed to do.But I really don't accept the proposition this is some super loose section which anyone riding a bike can be caught under. Remember, this needs to be proved BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. So the evidence needs to be rock solid. The reason Fryberg etc have an issue is due to a) the reduction of judicial discretion and b) invasive police powers.

while most of what you said is correct, the issue isn't that they dont have to prove you're a member of a club, infact you have to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that you are not a member of a club, and you can be done for an extra 15 years,
add to that in theory if you are caught on tape having a drink with two mate's in another state who are members of a bike gang, you could also be arrested,

that my friend is why people are upset,

TDog,

I'm not having ago in any way, and I concur that statutory interpretation is difficult job but I would point you to the austlii explanatory notes of the billhere

With particular attention to the following:
Clause 5 sets out the associate laws.

Subclause (2) provides a defence to a person being found to be a vicious lawless
associate. The legal onus (balance of probabilities) is upon the defendant to prove that
the relevant association is an association whose members do not have as their
purpose, or one of their purposes, engaging in, or conspiring to engage in, declared
offences.

I don't know loads about criminal law but I do know that beyond reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities are terms of trade that specify a standard of proof.

Clause 6 is an evidentiary aid and provides a rebuttable presumption. A person will be
presumed to an officer bearer of the relevant association where the person has
asserted, declared or advertised that he or she is an office bearer, or where a person is
commonly treated by other persons who participate in the association's affairs as an
office bearer. Where such evidence is before the court, the defendant will bear the
legal onus of proving they were not an officer bearer of the relevant association at the
time of committing the offence

You can rebut the presumption but you do need to, the crown doesn't have to establish you are an officer of an association.

How it plays out exactly well that's for the courts to decide, but explanatory memoranda are a useful guide to parliaments legislative intention.

@tollazor - so if a law has the capacity to be used incorrectly, it should be changed?

Like this one?......

PPRA S 29 Searching persons without warrant

(1) A police officer who reasonably suspects any of the prescribed circumstances for searching a person without a warrant exist may, without a warrant, do any of the following—

(a) stop and detain a person;
(b) search the person and anything in the person's possession for anything relevant to the circumstances for which the person is detained.

The prescribed circumstances for searching a person without a warrant are as follows—

(a) the person has something that may be—
(i) a weapon, knife or explosive the person may not lawfully possess, or another thing that the person is prohibited from possessing under a domestic violence order or an interstate domestic violence order; or
(ii) an unlawful dangerous drug; or
(iii) stolen property; or
(iv) unlawfully obtained property; or
(v) tainted property; or

etc etc

So if a police officer 'reasonably suspects' you have drugs, they can search you?? OMFG - OUTRAGE

A police officer once searched me and I questioned his suspicion, or lack thereof, that I was in possession of drugs.

He stated "Well if I find something, I would have had reasonable suspicion, wouldn't I?."

The most abused law in history. A friend who is a cop told me that simply being in the valley means he can have such a suspicion.

And guess what happens when you say no?

But yes, it has potential for abuse, so lets change it, immediately. This can affect average citizens and is an absolute outrage.

This is like watching deaf people dance.

if a cop stops you and tries to search you and finds nothing the cop should lose 10xp

if they do lose xp with each failed search they might be more careful in future

nother toothless youtube video from anonymous that will lead to nothing. I bet the QLD gov are terrified.

Newman better watch out, he's gonna get soooo many pizza deliveries today! That'll show him

So if my coach or team mate deals a bit of pot on the side and some of the guys buying are players or board members does that make my local football club a criminal organization?

actually, you have to prove that you aren't a criminal organisation.

QLD doesn't have a senate so it can pass any wacky laws they want to.

I think they need to bring back the upper hosue.

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/explore/education/factsheets/papers/paper01_abolitionOfTheUpperHouse.pdf

actually, you have to prove that you aren't a criminal organisation.

Can you read?

The onus lies on the crown to prove subsection (1) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Subsection (2) provides an optional defence.

Nothing in the section has the effect of automatically proving sub 1 if sub 2 is not proven.

The following section in the act provides a presumption for 'officers' of the organisation that if they 'hold themselves out to be officers,' (by wearing 'IM THE PRESIDENT' badge) they are presumed to be officers - it makes it easier for the crown to prove the 'is in an organisation' element.

Do you understand how it works now?

There's no magical automatic branding as a vicious lawless associate.

QLD doesn't have a senate so it can pass any wacky laws they want to.I think they need to bring back the upper hosue.https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/explore/education/factsheets/papers/paper01_abolitionOfTheUpperHouse.pdf

I love Queensland and their wacky Laws.

They're so wacky.

Nah probably more Techno Viking.
He could very well be from Queensland...

May as well take all the rainbow ones off too while your at it.

These gangs and their stand over tactics have no place in a modern society...

- Jack Dempsey

Is he talking about the police?

He might have looked more like a bikie than a dike.

Learn to spell.

a hefty revision to these reforms should be outlawing Cambies fleet of hella expensive Lemon donger bikes that Hue danced his booty off to

http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2013/11/11/4913609/pink_420-420x237.jpg

Yes - here - https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/C/CriminCodeCOR13.pdf

At page 3.

It lists out the outlawed clubs. Clearly, the SES and the RACQ is not on the list.

http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/wooloowin/bicycles/childrens-balance-bike-y-bike-for-kids/1031118798

Little laugh for you all