GETTING TOUGH ON GANGS

INTRODUCTION

The Devils Are Here shows what gangs are really like. They lead destructive lives and cause wide-spread harm in our communities. Gangs are our number one organised crime problem. They’re firmly entrenched in our underworld and considerable resources are needed to combat them. Unfortunately there is no quick-fix or silver bullet.

New Zealand is in a unique position where we can create a world-leading approach to fighting gangs. In this section I discuss some practical things we can do to improve our fight. It’s in three parts...

• Legislation.
• Policing gangs.
• Take it to them.

A comprehensive gang plan has a number of components to it that often come under the headings of “prevention,” “intervention” and “suppression”. Prevention aims to prevent at-risk young people from joining gangs. Intervention involves working with gang members and at-risk youth with the aim of leading them away from a life of crime into more productive areas. Suppression involves making gang membership unattractive by a range of methods including monitoring, enforcement of laws, arrests and imprisonment. This section focuses on suppression and doesn’t include prevention or intervention. It should be stressed that suppression doesn’t work by itself and prevention and intervention are vital ingredients in any gang plan.

LEGISLATION

Our existing laws have worked well against many gang members. Offences found in the Crimes Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Arms Act, the Summary Offences Act and the Land Transport Act (to name a few) have been effective and our jails are full of gang members who have been caught under their provisions.

Unfortunately our laws against methamphetamine let us down. One of the reasons we have such a meth problem is because police lacked adequate powers. It took far too long to fix and we still haven’t got it right. It’s vital that we react a lot quicker to future changes in the underworld. Legislation must keep pace with criminal activity because if you give criminals a five or ten year head-start you’ll never catch up.

In this section I look at...

• Methamphetamine.
• Banning gang patches.
• Banning gangs.
• Proceeds of Crime
• New laws worth considering.

The Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act was passed in May 2009. I discuss issues relating to the banning of gang clothing, not only in Wanganui but nationwide, as other councils consider similar legislation. Some Australian States are going a step further and making gang membership illegal. I take an educated guess at what will happen if we ban gangs here and finish with some new laws we should consider.

METHAMPHETAMINE

On a percentage basis New Zealand has one of the highest rates of methamphetamine use in the world. Our meth trade is currently estimated at from $750 million to $1.5 billion per year at street-level prices. If these figures are correct, they are staggering for a population of only four million people. At the lower range, $750 million per year means we spend over two million dollars a day on meth. At the higher range, it's four million.

Methamphetamine started becoming popular in NZ in the mid 1990's. The arrival of crystal meth ("P") in 1999 saw street-level purity rocket from around 5% to 60 - 80%. Unfortunately we had a decade where meth-dealers thrived while police lacked adequate legislation. There were two key areas where our laws let us down...

• Police lacked the power to search for methamphetamine without a warrant.
• The presumption amount was set too high. I don't think we've got it right yet.

SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT

Police targeting drug dealers often have to act quickly or the drugs will be distributed. Most top-level dealers keep large amounts in their possession for as little time as possible to reduce their chances of getting caught. The Misuse of Drugs Act gave police emergency powers to search for cannabis and other drugs without a search warrant, but it didn't include methamphetamine. Drug dealers knew they could keep P on them without the risk of getting searched. They could get searched for a cannabis "tinnie" worth $20 but not for an ounce of meth worth $10 000. This loophole was finally fixed in 2003 when meth was upgraded to a Class A controlled drug.

PRESUMPTION AMOUNT

Normally when the police lay charges, it's up to them to prove their allegations. An exception is when they find a large amount of drugs. A person caught with more than what is called the "presumption amount" will be charged with possession for supply and it's up to them to prove that they didn't have the drug for supply.

The presumption amounts vary for different drugs. The presumption amount for cannabis is one ounce (28 grams). Street-level dealers often buy an ounce to make into "bullets" which they sell for $20 each. It's also common for people to buy an ounce for their personal use. Some grow enough dope during the growing season to last them the whole year. If the police find more than the presumption amount, they may be charged with possession for supply, yet they will escape conviction if they can convince the Court that the dope was for their own use. (They get convicted of possession but not possession for supply).

While the presumption amount works for cannabis, it doesn't work for methamphetamine. The Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1975 and meth wasn't common here then. The presumption amount was set at 56 grams (two ounces). One gram of high purity methamphetamine (P) can sell for $1000 so 56 grams is worth a lot of money! A person could get caught with tens of thousands dollars worth and not get done for supply. It took until 2005 for our lawmakers to reduce the presumption amount for meth to its current level, which is 5 grams.

Cannabis: An ounce and tinnies. Methamphetamine: 5 grams of P, 1 gram of P, 20 points.

And we still haven't got it right. Compare the presumption amounts for cannabis and methamphetamine...
Cannabis...

• The presumption amount is 28 grams (one ounce).
• An ounce usually costs from $200 to $350.
• An ounce can make around 20 "tinnies" (some dealers get up to 30) which sell for $20 each.

Methamphetamine ...

• The presumption amount is 5 grams.
• 5 grams usually costs from $3,000 to $5,000 (@ $600 to $1,000 per gram).
• While many think a point is 1/10th of a gram, it's often half that weight.
• Many dealers get 20 points per gram.
• 5 grams of P can be turned into $10,000 worth of points (100 points at $100 each).

What is the worst drug?

GETTING OFF IN COURT

Many dealers get off drug-dealing charges by claiming the drugs were for their own use. Take someone caught with an ounce of P (currently worth around $10 000 to $14 000). The police will call a drugs expert to explain that an ounce is a common drug-dealing weight and to give other evidence relevant to the particular case. What often happens is a line of questioning as shown below.

Lawyer: Do you agree that Mehtamphetamine is a highly addictive drugh?
Detective: Yes
Lawyer: Is it possible for people to use large amounts of P in one day?
Detective: Yes.
Lawyer: What's the most P that you know someone has used in one day?
Detective: I know people who are using 3 grams a day, although that amount is extremely heavy use.
Lawyer: If my client was an extremely heavy user, would it be possible for him to use 3 grams a day?
Detective: Yes, it would be possible.
Lawyer: If my client was using 3 grams a day, do you agree that 28 grams would last less than 2 weeks?
Detective: Yes.

Suddenly your case isn't looking so water-tight. The police may have other evidence, (such as admissions, sales to an undercover, recorded conversations from a bug, unexplained cash etc,) but if the police case is based purely on the amount of methamphetamine located it can be very hard to secure a conviction.

FIXING IT

The problem with setting any "presumption amount" is that some users can consume vast quantities of methamphetamine. A user could get through an ounce in two weeks but they've have blown at least $10 000 and they'd need to spend the same again for their next two weeks supply. People don't buy ounces of meth for their own use unless they are extremely wealthy. At the minimum, they'll sell enough to cover the cost of the meth they use themselves.

The "presumption amount" provisions don't work for methamphetamine, so why not make possession of meth for supply a strict liability offence with no presumption amount? If you've got more than a certain amount, you're guilty of possession for supply, irrespective of your reason for having it. The excuse that the drugs were for personal use would not be a defence to the charge.

I think half a gram would be an appropriate level and if you've got more than that you're deemed to be a dealer. Most users would keep smaller amounts in their possession and they would have to visit their dealer more frequently. This would cause more inconvenience for dealers and would increase their chances of getting caught

THE FUTURE OF METH IN NZ

Approximately 80% of the methamphetamine consumed in the United States today is imported from Mexico and unfortunately we are in a similar position with Asia. Customs and Police do a great job keeping our borders safe but they can't stop it getting in. The "ice" methamphetamine that comes here from Asia is higher purity than our local P. Asian crime gangs are prepared to import millions of dollars worth and slowly drip-feed the money back home. Customs estimate they seize around 20% of all importations. Major drug importers simply factor this in. The money they make on successful importations covers the cost of ones that don't get in and still leaves vast profits.

Drugs, like any commodity, are all about supply and demand. While reducing "supply" is part of an ongoing battle, reducing "demand" is how we will beat meth. The tide is starting to turn with people realising what a horrible drug it is. New Zealand is lucky that we don't have heroin problems that many other countries have and a big part of this is because our criminals generally consider heroin "uncool" and needle-use out of bounds. When P arrived on the scene it was seen as a "cool" drug to do but now more and more people are against it and it's no longer as fashionable as it way. Educating people about the potential dangers of meth is one of the best ways we can reduce demand.

For further information about methamphetamine please visit www.drugscene.co.nz

BANNING GANG PATCHES

The Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act was passed by parliament in May 2009. This section looks at issues relating to the banning of gang clothing, not only in Wanganui but nationwide, as other councils consider similar legislation.

It's in five parts...

• My position.
• Gang Violence
• Prohibition of Gang Insignia provisions
• Gang reaction
• Conclusion
  
  

MY POSITION

I’m against this law because I think it’s not in the best interests of the public or the police. Gang members don't need gang clothing to intimidate. Gang patches add to the intimidation level but take them away and you've still got a gang member.

Gang clothing lets the public identify gang members. A family who sees a group of gang members may decide that they don’t want to go anywhere near them. People seeing rival gangs in close proximity may choose to remove themselves from a potentially dangerous situation. Gang clothing lets the police identify gang members and provides valuable intelligence.

If gang members are causing problems we should address their behaviour. The behaviour of gang members is the issue, not the clothes they wear. If their behaviour is unacceptable it should be dealt with promptly by the police. There are a wide-range of existing laws that deal with anti-social behaviour, including summary offences such as intimidation, threatening language, disorderly behaviour and obstructing public way to name a few. More serious offences, including assault, threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm, possession of offensive weapons, robbery, demanding with intent to steal and unlawful assembly, are found in the Crimes Act.

Retailers can already ban people from their premises for up to two years under the Trespass Act. I support the right of any person or business or organiser of any public event to ban persons from displaying gang insignia on their premises. I consider this very different to the wholesale banning of gang clothing from public places.

Anti-gang legislation should not be introduced on a "piece-meal" basis, but as part of a comprehensive national gang strategy. The lack of a properly co-ordinated and resourced gang strategy is one of the reasons we have such a gang problem today.

GANG VIOLENCE

Drugs and violence are a big part of gang life. A gang member can take all sorts of precautions when they’re dealing drugs but violence can be their Achilles heel because it can happen without warning in very public places. If one member of a gang is involved in a fight, all other members must join in immediately. A common gangland saying is "He's my brother, and he's not always right but he's always my brother". To quote Sonny Barger, the infamous Hells Angel leader...

One on all, all on one means that when you fight with one Hells Angel, you fight us all. We all know what we have to do if somebody gets out of line, which happens. Assholes get drunk and think they're tough and there are a whole lot of people out there who like to try and whip a Hells Angel. If we stood up and fought everybody one on one, we'd be fighting non stop. Instead, it's easier to beat the hell out of one guy so the next ten guys don't dare try anything.
Hell's Angel by Ralph "Sonny" Barger with Keith and Kent Zimmerman. Harper Collins Publishers, USA. (2000) Page 39.

Gang violence occurs for a number of reasons including protection of criminal activities, personal interests, inter-gang rivalry and internal gang disputes. It can be very hard to predict because it's often spontaneous. It can be a simple case of someone being caught at the wrong place at the wrong time, or someone showing disrespect and then it's all-on. Backing down from a fight is not part of gang culture.

Australia has recently suffered a spate of serious gang violence which has included murders, bombings and drive-by shootings. In March 2009 a group of up to 15 Comanchero and Hells Angels brawled at Sydney Airport for about 15 minutes. The out-numbered Hells Angels were on the receiving end and 29 year old Anthony Zervas, the brother of one of the Angels, was beaten to death in front of hundreds of check-in passengers.

The presence of numerous surveillance cameras in a high security area did not stop them and unfortunately this is nothing new. One of the best known gang clashes happened in Laughlin, Nevada in April 2002 when more than 100 members of the Hells Angels and the Mongols MC fought inside Harrah's Casino. Two Hells Angels and a Mongol were killed during the brawl and another Hells Angel was fatally shot riding home. Julian Sher and William Marsden wrote about this incident in their book Angels of Death.

More than any other recent explosion of biker violence in the United States, the Laughlin shootout exposed just how brazen the Hells Angels and their rivals were. It wasn't the toll of the dying and injured that shocked people; there had been deadlier biker confrontations in recent years. It was the audacity of the Angels - and the Mongols - the outright contempt for the law, the flaunting of biker bravado. In a packed public arena, in full view of hundreds of security cameras, they waged a pitched battle to see who would be king of the outlaw jungle. And while the Mongols fled, stuffing their vests in garbage cans and air vents to avoid being identified by the police after the battle, not a single Hells Angel took off his colours."

Angels of Death by Julian Sher and William Marsden. Carroll and Graf Publishers, Canada. (2006) Page 76.

If gang members are going to "get it on", they will do so regardless of where they are or who else is around. In their world violence is sometimes unavoidable because they are expected to act a certain way, regardless of the consequences. And when the brawl is over they usually keep their colours on because its poor form to take them off.

Gang members may be wearing crash helmets or balaclavas when they commit violence or other crimes but they can still be identified by their clothing. New Zealand Police have identified gang members for serious crimes purely by their gang clothing.

Gang patches are pretty well identical from behind however most gang members personalise the front of their "colours" by adding various badges, as shown below.

When there's an incident of serious violence, the sooner the police can identify that gangs are involved, the sooner they can identify potential suspects and take steps to catch them. Take the example of a gang fight where the offenders have taken off, leaving one person seriously injured. If none of the gang members are wearing gang clothing it will take much longer to find out who is involved.

If the cops knew straight away that the Black Power and the Mongrel Mob had clashed they could immediately take steps to locate the offenders by checking gang addresses and looking for known vehicles. Time is often critical during the early stages of an investigation because offenders will destroy evidence (weapons and bloodstained clothing etc), arrange alibis or find somewhere to hide.

Accurate intelligence on gang members greatly assists gang-related investigations. One of the best ways for the police to find out about gang affiliation is by gang clothing. Patches are the single most important method of confirming gang membership.

PROHIBITION OF GANG INSIGNIA PROVISIONS

In this section I offer my opinion about some of the provisions of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act. Please note that this is not legal advice, but general information about legal issues. Consult a lawyer if you require legal advice. A copy of the legislation is available online from www.legislation.govt.nz

4 Interpretation

gang means—
(a) Black Power, Hells Angels, Magogs, Mothers, Mongrel Mob, Nomads, or Tribesmen; and
(b) any other specified organisation, association, or group of persons identified in a bylaw made under section 5. Gangs currently specified are the Head Hunters, Mangu Kaha and the Red Devils.

While local gang members are banned from wearing their patches, members of many other gangs can still wear their patches (and other gang insignia) in the Wanganui area. One of the aims of the law is to reduce violence between gangs. Banning some gangs and not others is likely to cause resentment and may increase the chance of violence between visiting gangs and local gang members.

Section 5 sets out how the Council can identify an organisation, association, or group of persons as a gang for the purposes of this Act. The Council must not make a bylaw identifying a gang unless it is satisfied that it has a common name or common identifying signs, symbols, or representations; and its members, associates, or supporters individually or collectively promote, encourage, or engage in a pattern of criminal activity. The Council may only make the bylaw if it is satisfied that it is reasonably necessary in order to prevent or reduce the likelihood of intimidation or harassment of members of the public in a specified place or to avoid or reduce the potential for confrontation by or between gangs.

A group may be branded a gang on the basis of the actions of its “associates” or “supporters”, even though members of the group itself do nothing illegal. 

The term “a pattern of criminal activity” is not defined.

This law gives too much power to a District Council about a national law and order issue. I don’t think a Council should be determining which groups are classified as gangs.

gang insignia—
(a) means a sign, symbol, or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of, an affiliation with, or support for a gang, not being  tattoos; and
(b) includes any item of clothing to which a sign, symbol, or representation referred to in paragraph (a) is attached.

There are a large number of legitimate items of clothing that may indicate support for a gang, for example a shirt bearing the number 81. (In the gangscene the Hells Angels are known as the “81’s”. “8” stands for the 8th letter of the alphabet “H” and “1” stands for “A”.)  Just because this number is used by supporters of the Hells Angels, it doesn’t follow that every person displaying it is a Hells Angel or a Hells Angel supporter.

What will happen to a heavily tattooed male who looks like a biker who walks through the Wanganui Central Business District wearing a tee shirt with “81” on it in large letters? The police might be called but what if the male is unco-operative and refuses to answer any questions apart from his name and address? Will the police arrest people for wearing the number 81 by itself?  What about some of the other numbers used by gangs?

Rather than rush in and follow Wanganui's gang patch ban other councils considering a similar move would be wise to wait and see how it works in practice. This legislation is currently being appealed in a test case involving the Hells Angels.

BANNING GANGS

Gangs should be banned. We shouldn’t have to tolerate them. They’re full of drug-dealing criminals who enforce their rule by violence, threats and intimidation. They create fear and cause a large amount of harm. Australia has recently introduced a range of anti-gang laws, including some that make gang membership illegal and there have been calls for gangs to be banned here.

It’s vital that solutions to our gang problems are practical, realistic and workable. While banning gangs is a great idea in theory, it won’t work in practice. In this section I look at what will happen if we ban gangs.

It’s currently not illegal to be a member of a gang in New Zealand unless the gang is an organised crime group. The offence of Participating in an Organised Criminal Group is contained in Section 98A of the Crimes Act.

The ingredients are...

• Three or more people.
  
• An objective of either committing serious violence or making money from offences punishable by four or more year’s jail.
  
• Knowledge that the gang fits into the above criteria
  
• Participation in the gang
  
• Knowledge that their participation contributes to the gang’s criminal activity or is reckless to that effect

A group of gang members getting together to attack their rivals with weapons or to cook a whole heap of “P” would qualify. The Government has recently increased the penalty for this offence and it now carries a maximum of ten years imprisonment. Earlier versions of this law were ineffective but it seems to be working well in its current form.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF GANGS ARE MADE ILLEGAL

GANG RESPONSE BEFORE THE LAW COMES IN

As the debate escalates, gangs will have meetings to discuss their tactics and strategies. They will have chapter meetings, national meetings (attended by representatives from all chapters) and inter-club meetings with other gangs. New Zealand gangs are in regular contact with their Australian counterparts and they’ll learn from their experience fighting the Aussie anti-gang laws.

Gangs will unite to fight a common enemy. They will work together in the short term. Australian gangs formed various groups to oppose their anti-gang laws. The United Motorcycle Council of Queensland for example, represents 17 clubs made up of motorcycle gangs (including many rivals) and 2 Christian MCs. New Zealand gangs will also seek the support of patch-wearing Christian motorcycle clubs because it helps them downplay their criminality.

Gangs will contribute money to a “defence fund” to engage lawyers to represent them as a whole. They will try to find loopholes in the proposed laws. They’ll look for groups who are excluded from the legislation, (such as political parties, trade unions or religious groups) and will seek ways to be classified as such a group. Some gangs may try “rebranding” (renaming their gang) if this avoids the new law.

Rival clubs will appear together at public events to show that they can get along without violence. If there has been recent violence between gangs, the level of violence will drop significantly because further conflict will hurt them all.

Some gangs may be directed by their leaders to stop wearing gang clothing in order to lower their profile. Most members of these gangs will still wear some form of clothing that reflects their club membership (such as a particular colour or style).

The tattooing of gang insignia will increase because members know this is one form of insignia the government cannot take away from them.

Some uncommitted members will quit the gang. Those near retirement or with a weak heart may opt out because they don’t want the aggravation. Others will harden their resolve and become stronger as the result of this renewed commitment to their club and their club “brothers”.

Gangs will seek public support to fight the legislation. They will mount an extensive PR campaign and will court the media, seeking as much favourable coverage as possible. They will argue that while some members have convictions, the clubs themselves are not criminal organisations. They will ask “if the law applies to them, who else can they be applied to?” They will invite the media to their events and clubhouses and will portray themselves as likeable rogues who love riding motorcycles. They may hold public meetings and have “open days” when the general public is invited to functions at their clubhouses.

Civil libertarians, lawyers, academics and others will argue that the laws are a serious erosion of our individual rights and a breach of natural justice. (I’ll leave these issues to them.)

GANG RESPONSE AFTER THE LAW COMES IN

There are a range of things that may happen when the law first comes into force. Gangs and their respective members will respond in different ways. Some gangs will break the new law in a very public manner, others won’t.

One option is to go down fighting with gang members expected to show how much their colours mean to them. This highly confrontational approach is something we could expect from some chapters or factions of the Mongrel Mob for example. Gangs could actually enhance their reputations and people could get hurt in the process.

If it’s a bike club making the stand, they are more likely to go peacefully (although there’ll be plenty of posturing for the TV cameras). The gang would have planned their actions in advance. If the entire gang is arrested they’ll go without offering any resistance.

Any planned action could be undermined by rogue elements within the gang who have their own agendas. This will make some events unpredictable and difficult to police.

It’s possible that a major gang or a group of gangs may decide to breach the law en masse. Imagine the chaos that would be caused if all members of the Black Power (800 to 1000 patchmembers) broke the law at the same time. It would be a logistical nightmare and there would not be enough police officers to arrest them all.

Gangs have the opportunity to engineer large scale non-violent protest action that would attract widespread international media coverage and harm New Zealand’s international image. I’m not going to spell out all the options but gangs could bring our justice system to a grinding halt, and it would not be just short-term disruption.

All arrested gang members will plead not guilty. They will challenge the law on the grounds of any technicalities their lawyers find as well as alleging a breach of their human rights and the Bill of Rights Act etc. If the law is upheld, it will be appealed.

Police will target gangs using the new legislation. Many gang members will be caught as they struggle to adjust to the new laws or blatantly commit breaches. There will be a significant influx of gang members entering our already struggling prison system. The more gang members in prison, the greater their influence. Being neutral may not be an option in many prisons and inmates will be forced to choose sides. Gang numbers in prison will dramatically increase. Gangs will also recruit new hard-core members to maintain their presence on the street.

When all avenues of appeal have been exhausted, gangs will accept that they are illegal organisations. They will expect that breaches of the law will result in imprisonment. (Selling methamphetamine is punishable by life imprisonment and that does not stop them.)

Gangs will look for ways around the law. They will meet in smaller numbers and will stop riding together as a club. Members will conceal gang membership from authorities. Gang patches won’t be worn in public as gangs adopt more discreet membership symbols, such as tattoos or jewellery. Intelligence gathering will become more difficult for police.

When the pressure is applied by authorities, further uncommitted members will quit. Some chapters or smaller clubs will cease to exist. Some of the more hard-core members from defunct gangs will join other gangs. These changes will result in the remaining gangs becoming more hard-core, with moderate members being the most likely to leave. (Most gangs are run as a democracy and moderate members often balance the views of the more extreme.)

Banning particular gangs will make membership of those gangs more elite and their enhanced reputation will help them attract new prospects.

Some gangs will put aside their differences and form closer relationships however co-operation between many rival gangs will deteriorate over time because of long-standing rivalries. Things have happened in the past which are not easily forgotten or forgiven. Gangs have extensive intelligence gathering capabilities and they will continue to know who their rivals are and what they are up to.

Myths around gangs will grow and it will become harder to distinguish fact from fiction. The police will suffer from a significant reduction in the quality of gang intelligence. Police estimates of gang membership will be wildly inaccurate as they will be unable to determine who is actually in the gang. Gang patches are the single most important method of confirming gang membership and without them the accuracy of intelligence will diminish.

Investigations into some offences will become much more difficult because of intelligence gaps. The suspect pool will be often larger than it should be and resources will not be focused on the correct offenders.

Gangs and gang members will continue to learn and will keep evolving to get around law enforcement methods.

COMMENT

New Zealand would be mad if we didn’t have a very close look at the anti-gang legislation which is currently being introduced in Australia, but in doing so I hope we take a careful, considered approach. “Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread”.

Many of the new Australian laws were rushed through following the brawl at Sydney Airport between the Hells Angels and the Comancheros which resulted in the death of Anthony Zervas, a 29 year old Hells Angel associate.

It will take at least three or four years from when the laws are passed until we get some real indication about their effectiveness. The first 12 to 18 months are likely to be taken up with court cases and legal challenges and after that we’ll have to see how gangs react before we can really evaluate their success. There will be many short-term successes but gangs will bounce back and they are likely to be far more dangerous and far more difficult to catch.

Once you go down the path of banning gangs and making them illegal there’s no going back. New Zealand’s gang environment is very different to Australia’s. We’ve got some definite advantages because we are a small country with one police force and one set of laws (apart from Whanganui!).

Australia has had a huge amount of gang violence over recent years including many murders, drive-by shootings, serious assaults and arson attacks. The Anthony Zervas killing was the last straw for many and it’s no wonder that the Aussies are sick to death of their gangs. Unfortunately what we are seeing across the Tasman is a form of moral panic, driven by politicians. The majority of Australian states have rushed through anti-gang legislation, which will ultimately backfire on them. I hope New Zealand doesn’t make the same mistake.

Gangs will never give up despite any new initiatives by the Government. Banning them won’t solve anything. All it will do is drive them further underground, making them harder to catch. Gangs will adapt to any new laws and they will develop into more effective crime groups with a greatly reduced public profile.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Most gang offending is done on an individual basis where the person who does the crime keeps the proceeds for themselves. The amount of crime varies from gang to gang and from member to member. It’s a common misconception that all gang members are making huge amounts from the sale of methamphetamine. There are some who have made literally millions of dollars from selling P but there are plenty of others who are living from day to day.

Targeting the proceeds of crime is a very important tool in the fight against gangs. Some gang members (and other criminals) have accumulated significant wealth without doing an honest days work in their life. Unfortunately our proceeds of crime laws haven’t been up to scratch. They were conviction-based, meaning that crims had to be convicted of a serious criminal offence before their ill-gotten gains could be seized.

The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act was passed by Parliament in April 2009 and came into force in December 2009. The Crown only needs to prove on the "balance of probabilities" that a person has profited from criminal offending. This is a lower standard of proof than the previous “beyond reasonable doubt” and no longer requires a conviction. Police can demand answers from criminals about how they gained their assets. It will be up to the person with the assets to prove that they weren’t acquired with the proceeds of crime and if they can’t, they’ll lose them.

On 29/10/09 the Government announced the formation of a 22 member Assets Recovery Unit. This new police unit will be staffed by experienced investigators, forensic accountants and lawyers and they’ll use the expertise of the Serious Fraud Office and the Inland Revenue Department. The Government has said that some of the forfeited assets will be used to fund the fight against Organised Crime. The new law will be an extremely effective weapon against certain gang members and we’ll see many successes over the next few years.

Once again the lesson here is that our laws must keep place with criminal offending. To quote Patrick Gower from the New Zealand Herald (30/10/09)...

“The measure was introduced to Parliament by Labour almost five years ago but has only finally wriggled its way into law. That it has taken so long is an indictment on the politicians who have prevaricated (mucked around) rather than the police officers who have long made it clear they were hamstrung when dealing with clever criminals.”

NEW LAWS WORTH CONSIDERING

TEXT TO GO HERE...

POLICING GANGS

TAKING IT TO THEM