[rustynutz]

BY MARK HINCHLIFFE
9 FEB, 2016

As the deadline approaches at the end of next month for the long-awaited review of Queensland’s consorting laws, or so-called anti-bikie laws, a former detective has shown they are not having the desired effect on organised crime.

Queensland Police are asking the government review for the current Vicious Lawless Associates Disestablishment (VLAD) laws to remain in place, claiming they have been successful in reducing organised crime and “bikie” numbers.

However, Terry Goldsworthy, a former Gold Coast detective and now Bond University criminology associate professor, says the Queensland VLAD laws of 2013 have actually increased some organised crime offences and the number of “bikie gang” members.

He says figures from the Queensland Police Department show drug trafficking offences in the state have doubled in the time since the VLAD laws have been imposed.

He also points out in an article in The Conversation that the number of “bikie gang” members has increased by 34% since 2012 to about 6000 across the nation.

So far, only one person has been successfully convicted under the VLAD laws and he was not a member of an outlawed motorcycle club or had anything to do with motorcycles. Meanwhile, 2573 offenders have been arrested on 8582 charges with no convictions and in many cases no police evidence offered.

LAZY POLICING

If it sounds like “lazy policing”, that is exactly what the Queensland Law Society predicted would be the outcome of the controversial VLAD laws:

Another risk is that the proposed law will lead to lazy policing, where mere criminal intelligence, as opposed to proper evidence, is required to bring criminal consequences upon citizens.

For the innocent motorcyclist, this could manifest itself as police harassment via discriminatory licence and vehicle checks.

Terry says the anti-consorting laws amount to “policing someone because of who they are, not on the basis of any criminal activity they may be doing. They aim to pre-empt any offences.”

So, in effect, if you socialise with, or look like, an archetypal bikie (whatever that is) you can expect to be treated like a criminal by the police.

Terry says similar anti-consorting laws have been in place in the Northern Territory since 2006, in NSW since 2012, and Victoria and South Australia since 2015.

Yet he points out that the NT and all states, except Tasmania, already had suitable serious crimes laws in place to help police tackle organised crime, but they had rarely been used.

“What Australia needs is informed debate, removed from the strident moral panic being propagated by the media and law enforcement agencies,” Terry says.

“We need to implement criminal justice policy from a strong evidence base with a view to establishing best practice. This is lacking in the current rush to embrace criminal association laws.”

Source: ?Bikie? laws lead to increased crime - Motorbike Writer

[Surferdude]

This is a classic case of interpreting things to suit your own ends.

The guy is a "former detective".

Most importantly, IMHO, the heading for this topic should read "Bikie Laws Lead to Increased Crime Detection"
Because as the report says "figures from the Queensland Police Department show drug trafficking offences in the state have doubled in the time since the VLAD laws have been imposed."
Which can just as well mean the police have been more successful in finding offenders.
The "former detective" also apparently says the VLAD laws have increased the number of bikie members. But presents no evidence of this apart from quoting an article in "The Conversation". I doubt anyone can give a genuine estimate of bikie members either before or after the VLAD laws were invoked. At least not without seriously jeopardising your own health.

I've come across The Conversation before. It purports to present an alternative and balanced view of the facts. But whenever I've read anything I find myself questioning the article's bona fides. Why? I can't really say apart from the idea that it just seems to be presenting the "Negative" position like we used to have in school debates. "Affirmative and Negative" teams. And it didn't matter which position you actually believed in; you just had to make a case, based on whichever team you were placed in by the teacher.

[rustynutz]

This is a classic case of interpreting things to suit your own ends.

The guy is a "former detective".

You say that like it's a bad thing...Doggie1 is a "former cop", you are a "former tyre salesman", does being "former" now mean doubt is cast over the validity of their opinions??? 

Just sayin'.... 

[rustynutz]

This is a classic case of interpreting things to suit your own ends.

Something you could possibly be accused of doing also, Trev... 

[Surferdude]

This is a classic case of interpreting things to suit your own ends.

Something you could possibly be accused of doing also, Trev... 

Not quite. My aim is only to try to ensure a balanced view is presented.  You seem to be suggesting I have some sort of hidden agenda. If you aren't then fine.
My point above is that it's very easy to manipulate information to "prove" a point.

Rarely can you find a "balanced" view on anything.  There is comprehensive research on most things these days. But people pick the eyes out of it and far too many of the general public are easily influenced,  although IMO they are often only looking for something to support their own half baked theories.

I'm out.

[ibrokeit]

Because as the report says "figures from the Queensland Police Department show drug trafficking offences in the state have doubled in the time since the VLAD laws have been imposed."
Which can just as well mean the police have been more successful in finding offenders.

Well whatever the case is about the article and the other points raised...

I though the same thing about the above... have the number of offenses doubled? or has the rate of detection doubled? You can't know for certain (because that would require knowing you detected all instances - which is esp. not the case when it comes to illegal activity; as well as many legal activities).   It annoys me when people (not anyone on the forum in this instance) imply something is happening more because the figures went up - as if all instances of whatever it is are recorded in the first place.

Closely related is arguments where statistics for certain specific populations are applied to general population - e.g. that 'xyz is indicative that a person will likely commit abc offense, because 90% of those caught/convicted of abc offense did/looked at/used/had/etc. xyz'   And so therefore 'xyz should be illegal - or people doing xyz should automatically be investigated for abc.'.   Nope! Sorry - just because something is highly prevalent (and detectable) in one specific population (or portion thereof) doesn't make it apply to the entire general population.

[Lakes]

What the former detective might mean, is the heat on outlaw Bikie groups might have taken the heat off the Criminal Surfie group's like the Bra Boy's & drug trafficking is up.
I find it hard to understand how we are told not to put people into minority groups treat all the same. but, you can drive a car & not be labled, you can do just about anything. but ride a motor bike & you get labled. no word on nationality, religion , or what you do to make your fortune. i think a lot of taxpayer funds being waisted.

[rustynutz]

Did anyone do some research on this "former detective" ? 

It would seem this particular former detective actually pushed for tougher police action against "bikies".

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/gold-coast-bikie-gangs-out-of-control-need-tougher-police-action-says-criminologist-terry-goldsworthy/story-fnihsrf2-1226663867527
(I found the comments at the end of the story interesting...)

So it would seem he's not a "bikie" lover.... 

Interesting then that he's not a fan of the VLAD laws...

Hmm, perhaps his comments are more "balanced" than some may think...

[rustynutz]

This is a classic case of interpreting things to suit your own ends.

Something you could possibly be accused of doing also, Trev... 

Not quite. My aim is only to try to ensure a balanced view is presented.  You seem to be suggesting I have some sort of hidden agenda. If you aren't then fine.
My point above is that it's very easy to manipulate information to "prove" a point.

It did seem you were trying to discredit the former detective by highlighting the fact that he is a "former detective" a number of times, Trev... 
To me that is not ensuring a balanced view is presented but more about reducing the validity of his opinion... 

[Surferdude]

Whatever.

[ibrokeit]

Another interesting thing in connection with VLAD laws...

The Mongrel Mob (started in NZ) is operating on the GC in daylight, patches, etc. - one reason for this would be it isn't on the list of outlawed groups (I forget the exact term they use for the list)... to which the VLAD laws apply.   So basically the VLAD law, in such instances, is making it easier for new/foreign groups to come and take over - at least until they are also declared on the list.

The Gold-Coast MP is saying the emergence of 'new gang threats' (well it might be new to that area but they aren't new) show the need for the laws to be expanded, instead of watered down.

Well no it doesn't... sorry.   It shows the apparent need for placing such on the list so it can apply - now, depending on how that has to be done, it may (or may not) also show a need to have an improved process for that (however a drawn out process involving many people to add a group(s) - such as an amendment to a law may also be a useful protection to stop unreasonable additions).


TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read) version of the below: VLAD laws appear to cover situations outside of those it was intended to (or what it was said that they were for) with mandatory sentences; for certain aspects it is up to the defendant to prove things don't apply - rather than prosecution proving they do; the 'test' for the laws being applied (or being barred from applying) is whether an organisation is named on a list - irrespective of if the organisation or it members are, or are not, committing criminal acts (or have been); and reportedly not many charges have reached the conviction stage (at least not yet).

 

As for the laws - I get the concept but the actual implementation has something to be desired, and so does/did statements from people in power.  Now one thing to realise is it applies not only to members, but also to people associated with them who are, appear to be, or could be involved - e.g. wives.  Soon after it was first enacted there needed to be an amendment to fix a couple of things that should have been caught (if it hadn't been pushed through quickly) and it had been realised if you quit your organisation they couldn't be applied (even if it was for something covered while you were a member).  Which resulted in statements being said that that would be fixed so if you had been it would apply - seemingly that even if you were now, and had been for sometime, 'clean' you and/or people associated with you could/would still be 'got' (words to the effect of "even if someone has left in the past we will get them" were being said).   Of course this would then start to be a problem with the anti-association (3 or more members/associates, etc. of any the groups meeting or being together) aspects - how can without getting 'done'...  a family with more than two (current and/or former) members, etc. go out in public for dinner? or former member, etc. go on group charity rides? or two people who are romantic/life partners meet up with a third person (where all are current and/or former) in public? or an ex-bikie turned priest (there are a few) have current or former members in his ministry?  It gets more interesting, as from memory, it also covers properties where criminal organisation activity could be suspected - such as you might suspect where there is 3 or more people covered by the laws e.g. a family with multiple members of organisation(s) living together; a back-yard BBQ of family; etc., etc.

Okay if three current members turn up somewhere and they get done, even if it is for a family dinner in public, then whatever - the intention of the law is to disrupt the organisations... don't want to get done being at a family dinner? then leave that outlaw group(s).  But if former members turn-up somewhere and get done because there are other former members or current members (either of which they might not know about) - that doesn't seem to help or give incentive... esp. as it is a mandatory sentence.  As it is I don't know if they did ever enact it to cover former members (without restraint) but that is what the politicians were saying they would do.  However I do know even when people are charged, allegedly being current members/associates at the time, such charges have been dropped - such as the case of the civic-awarded librarian (assistant) - she, her partner/boyfriend and another guy (the two guys allegedly being members of an outlawed group) were allegedly in a pub wearing patched bikie vests (which is illegal under the liquor act).  They all got charged under both the anti-association of the VLAD law(s) and liquor laws (for 'colours') - the two men also got charged and convicted on different offenses for possessing various things.  All three got convicted on the liquor law offenses - but the anti-association charge was dropped.  Anti-association charges dropped against first woman charged under Queensland's anti-bikie laws - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Of course another aspect was/is officer bearers - for the purposes of that law you could be considered an office bearer even if you weren't a member but filled/did the roll (of course, for the purposes of law this was to prevent groups from ceasing to exist formally but having people carry out such roles) - for an office bearer it is (IIRC) a mandatory 10 year sentence in addition to whatever other mandatory or non-mandatory sentence for what you are being convicted on - this can be a mandatory 25 year sentence (if convicted of certain other things under the laws).  To illustrate the problem with this is to take, for example, any number of ladies where their husbands become treasurer of a group (but don't really know what to do) and their lady ends up doing the books (it happens a bit) everything is perfectly legit regarding the keeping of the books, their content and the group itself.  Then for whatever reason that group is outlawed under the laws (maybe members played two-up regularly or always over brewed tea) - my understanding is that the next time any two members/associates plus herself meetup (e.g. her, her husband and one other) they can be arrested and charged for association under the laws, if convicted for association the lady will be looking at a mandatory 10 year sentence for being an officer bearer on top of the mandatory 6 months for association - having not committed any other criminal act except the association, esp. none typically associated with intended targets of the laws.   Now it is pretty unlikely such a group would be made illegal in the first place, but it is what I understand could happen.

Then you can consider what would happen if somehow a legitimate group, such as political group or a group with apparent social influence (freemasons, rotary, toastmasters, etc..) gets listed and all it takes is for it being listed (there doesn't have to be proof of criminal activity for listing)... all of sudden many people who haven't done anything illegal are effected by being members (or associated with them) - some of those being in power...  oh dear!   AFAIK the only thing that stops that is the fact, at least currently, the law has to be amended to modify the list - the associated process would hopefully avoid this.   There is also the point were for certain aspects of the law the defendant needs to prove they didn't, rather the prosecution needing to prove they did.  And that there haven't, at least not yet, been many convictions under it - it is reported there is very few compared to the numbers of charges laid - so is it actually directly effective?

[rustynutz]

From "the Conversation" article...   
 
Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs | Australian Crime Commission

[ibrokeit]

The Gold-Coast MP is saying the emergence of 'new gang threats' (well it might be new to that area but they aren't new) show the need for the laws to be expanded, instead of watered down.

Well no it doesn't... sorry.   It shows the apparent need....

I would just like to say... I am not putting forward, in the above, that those laws should, or should not, be expanded; or should, or should not, be watered down; etc.; etc..

Just that is incorrect to claim the laws need expanding because they don't apply to a group not on listed in the list.   Unless the 'expanding' meant only to add names to the list (I doubt that was what was meant) or altering the mechanism which determines applicability - i.e. the list - (which I also doubt was the meaning) as both situations would more accurately fall under amendments rather than expanding the laws.

[Aussie Keith]

Sons of Anarchy shirt confuses Queensland cops

Lazy policing... ??? 

[ibrokeit]

Sons of Anarchy shirt confuses Queensland cops

Lazy policing... ??? 

Depends on what you want to call lazy? and/or was it training.... was it a case of 'looks gang so is gang thinking' or better be safe than sorry? or was it a case of not being provided with materials to learn which ones are from outlaw groups - so they didn't realise (if they don't know/follow the series).

That happened 2.5 years ago now it seems.

[nzenigma]

This is a classic case of interpreting things to suit your own ends.

The guy is a "former detective".

......Which can just as well mean the police have been more successful in finding offenders.
.

Mate, you are being a bit selective too. 
 It is stated that Terry Goldsworthy is both an ex-detective and an academic. His skills in both fields have lead to his interpretation of the arrest rates.

While doing my Honours thesis (Polynesian gangs), I had conversations with Professor Arthur Veno, 'bikie associate' and academic. Again dual experience advances his expertise. He asserts that 'all gangs' are responsible for a mere 0.6% of Australian crime. Note Correction
Goldsworthy and eventually the Qld Police Commissioner came to similar conclusions.

Due to the VLAD laws, police numbers were increased, therefore you are correct to say "police have been more successful in finding offenders". But, they were "offenders", not necessarily bikies.

In Brisbane, I was able to watch the police in action. Young green cops were psyched up at headquarters, they donned armour, and came out with 'attitude' toward everyone.
 They became more dangerous to the public than the bikies.
After they killed 5 people in one week ( not bikers) the police hierarchy decided to rein them in and tried to distance themselves from the government of the day.

[Surferdude]

I may be "selective", but I have the time tp pay careful attention to what's going on in the real world.
6%?
Fair enough. But where does that 6% fit in the level of seriousness of all crime?
There is a lot more petty theft, housebreaking and so on than violent crime. I doubt much of that 6% fits in at that lower level.

[nzenigma]

Surferdude, I  apologise,  Veno’s 6% figure was from memory, it should be “0.6 "

Petty crime was not the reason for the introduction of the draconian VLAD laws. It was political theatre, stage managed by an incompetent Attorney General, pandering a constituency who were troubled by news reporting.

One example: Police stats for 2007-8 show 19,327 reported assaults in Queensland. Therefore, gang members (including so-called youth gangs) committed about  0.6% or 116  of the reported assaults.

Social Scientists (some of us also exist in the real world) may argue that the VLAD legislation was the beginning of a classic ’Moral Panic Episode’. As you say,  “a classic case of interpreting things to suit your own ends”.  Moral panic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia