RICHARD ACKLAND
At last, a good helping of red meat for Ray Hadley and other self-appointed guardians of right-thinking people.
The passage of new consorting and criminal gangs laws give the police brave new powers.
Maybe it's not the best time to be investing our constables with more discretions, particularly when they show a remarkable inability to be discreet.
Not all will see it that way. The loudest music hall spruikers want our streets made safe for law-abiding citizens but rarely, if ever, point to the fact that in western and south-western Sydney the crime rate in most categories has been steadily falling.
A field day of indignation was had regarding inquiries by the Attorney-General, Greg Smith, into amending bail and sentencing laws so that fewer young, first-time offenders would wind up inside.
Now the government appears to be making a concerted effort to get some fresh recruits to fill the jail spots left vacant by improvements to sentencing options.
The consorting and organised crime legislation that sailed through unamended on March 12 will soon have people hanging off the rafters at Silverwater.
Under these amendments the required level of knowledge about associating with criminals is shifted down several pegs. All that is needed for a conviction is that the accused ''ought reasonably to know'' they were hanging out with baddies. In particular the amendments give near untrammelled discretion to police to monster former prisoners.
Police have the power to warn people and if, after being warned, they contact relevant convicted offenders, even by so much as a text message, they could be guilty of an offence with a penalty of up
to three years' prison. NSW Young Lawyers cited an example of how the law could play out adversely. If you play in a football team with a couple of lads who got caught in a fight and were convicted of assault, then the police can warn you that you are consorting. If you continue to play football with these teammates, you could be committing an offence and risk a stint inside.
The scope of available defences is far too restrictive and the consequence is that the legislation will have a disproportionately adverse affect on Aboriginal people and those working in prisoner rights organisations.
An amendment by the Greens' justice spokesman, David Shoebridge, MLC, was defeated. It sought consorting exemptions for those involved in ''advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action''. No free speech when it comes to consorters or those who have been warned.
Another component of the Crimes Act amendment was to create a new offence of ''firing at a dwelling house''. The maximum penalty was increased from 14 to 16 years. That is the response to drive-by shootings. As Shoebridge said, it will not have the slightest impact: ''I won't shoot at this house because yesterday
I would have got 14 years, but today I will get 16.''
Then there's the new edition of bikie laws, or the Crimes (Criminal Organisations) Act, which was passed last week - again without amendment. This replaces the bikie law that was struck down as unconstitutional by the High Court on the ground that it fettered the discretion of judges and turned them into the government's administrative creatures. No doubt there'll be another crack at dismantling the latest effort.
It contains some familiar features: the criminalisation of association rather than activity; applications by the police for organisations to be ''declared''; and judges who self-nominate for eligibility to hear these applications.
An ''eligible'' judge, once satisfied that a significant minority of an organisation is engaged in some sort of criminal activity, can declare the entire outfit to be criminal and impose control orders.
This applies not only to bikies. One example was given of the possibility that farmers who are involved in Lock the Gate protests against coal seam gas mining could well commit criminal offences if they blockade gas drilling rigs. The organisation could be declared under this act and each individuals' association with Lock the Gate would be criminalised.
I'd like to think this also applies to members of gentlemen's clubs in the city, a minority of whose members might be engaged in insider trading or corporate shenanigans. Even honest members could then become members of a declared criminal organisation and subject to control orders.
The important point is that there are already loads of laws to tackle illegal activities by groups and their members. Operation Ranmore and Strike Force Raptor delivered more than 1000 charges and 500 arrests under pre-existing laws in 2008.
Why not just work properly with the laws on extortion, drug dealing, money laundering and such like, rather than dispatching people to jail for ''association''?
By now it is horribly clear that investing more powers in the hands of trigger-happy officers is a matter of concern. All the more so when police reserve the right to investigate themselves, with all the potential for fudging and cover-up that readily provides.
Yesterday the long-term fugitive Malcolm Naden was captured after a massive and at times farcical police operation. He could have been Osama bin Laden, from the government's rhetoric. Under a press release headlined ''Naden to be held at Supermax'', the Attorney-General said the police should be congratulated.
The Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, touchingly declared it had been a ''tough time'' for the police.
The parliamentary secretary for justice, David Clarke, also showed his sensitive side, attacking opponents of the gangs control law: ''It is always civil liberties for the people who want to work as termites to undermine mainstream Australia and for criminals.''
justinian@lawpress.com.au
