OFF THE WIRE
Hells Angel loses anti-gang patch challenge
A Hastings member of the Hells Angels has lost his latest challenge to Wanganui's anti gang patch bylaws.
In rejecting Bryan Vincent Moore's appeal, Justice Alan MacKenzie said in the High Court at Wanganui that he could still challenge the bylaws by way of a judicial review or under the Bylaws Act.
Moore was convicted under the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act 2009 in March when the district court ordered the gang insignia was to be destroyed or disposed of.
Moore was prosecuted for wearing a Hells Angels t-shirt outside Wanganui police station on September 7 last year, within a week of the bylaw coming into force.
In the district court, Moore challenged the validity of the bylaws, but Judge Barber ruled that the court had no jurisdiction to hear such an application, a decision upheld by the High Court.
Justice MacKenzie said that Moore contended that there was no "specified place" for the gang patch prohibition because the council's bylaw in this regard was invalid.
The legislation prevents a bylaw being made which includes all public places within a district as "specified places".
Wanganui District Council had included effectively the whole urban area of the city, though a small percentage of the total area of the district.
Justice MacKenzie said a "close examination" of the council's decision-making process on this and other aspects of Moore's challenge to the bylaws would be required.
The council would have to be involved as a party in such a proceeding.
Justice MacKenzie said that, as the district court judge had said, Moore was still able to challenge the validity of the bylaw by way of an application for judicial review or under the Bylaws Act.
He said that arrangements could easily have been made to have the prosecution delayed while such proceedings were progressed.
"It is unfortunate that the procedure adopted has inevitably delayed a determination of the validity of the bylaw," Justice MacKenzie said.
"But that delay has resulted from the appellant's choice to assert the invalidity in what I have held is an inappropriate proceeding."
