casual riders being harassed

gus wrote:I have been riding to work and back every day (80 kls round trip ) plus on the weekend . I have yet to notice any different attitude from police .Those who think it cool to look like a " bad ass " might have but i'm yet to see it

Baz wrote:The problem now is Campbell Newman has placed himself and his entire family at risk because the bikies will be seeking their revenge on him even it takes 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. That will mean every Queenslander will be paying for his protection until the day he dies. Which might mean Queenslanders may have to buy him a new house in a new location possibly several times (maybe he has thought this law through thoroughly)

Don't we pay our politicians extremely well so that we don't end up with nitwits running things??  That's their excuse everytime they vote themselves a payrise .. so you have brilliant people making the laws of the land.

The next law they make will be that law abiding motorcyclists will need to have a implanted chip or tattoo to identify themselves from the 1%ers because the 1%ers don't or rather can't wear patches anymore.

Baz wrote:The problem now is Campbell Newman has placed himself and his entire family at risk because the bikies will be seeking their revenge on him even it takes 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. That will mean every Queenslander will be paying for his protection until the day he dies. Which might mean Queenslanders may have to buy him a new house in a new location possibly several times (maybe he has thought this law through thoroughly)

Don't we pay our politicians extremely well so that we don't end up with nitwits running things??  That's their excuse everytime they vote themselves a payrise .. so you have brilliant people making the laws of the land.

The next law they make will be that law abiding motorcyclists will need to have a implanted chip or tattoo to identify themselves from the 1%ers because the 1%ers don't or rather can't wear patches anymore.

Baz wrote:Not that I support 1%ers ... their criminals. I just think a law allowing their deportation would be better than harrassing law abiding riders ... deportation to ??? who would take them ?     try deportation to Antartica, they could even take their bikes with them, and not just bikies, people who go around shooting 13 year olds in the back should also try their luck in the deep deep cold south.

madmax wrote:On a good sunny day that "hot" line is going to be "smoking hot" with hundreds of riders out and about at any one time.
And when the hot line is that busy and you can't get through, do you call off your ride? Or take a chance?

This has got to be the worst piece of anti-motorcycle legislation ever thought up. I can only hope it doesn't gain momentum and spread to the other states. Hopefully it will die an early death after it is found too hard to control

In the following post, barrister Anna Cappellano discusses the effect of the state government's recent Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act
 
The Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (“VLAD”) was the first piece of the Queensland Government’s controversial anti-bikie legislation.[1] 
 
What does the VLAD Act do?
The VLAD Act is an unprecedented mandatory sentencing regime. It provides that people who are defined as “vicious lawless associates” will automatically have to serve 15 years in prison in addition to their standard sentence.[2]  If they are deemed to be an officer bearer of the relevant association, they will automatically be required to serve 25 years in custody in addition to their standard sentence.[3] The mandatory additional sentence of 15 or 25 years imprisonment must be imposed even if the person is not sentenced to a period of imprisonment for the original offence.
Unless the person becomes an informer, they are not eligible for parole during the additional sentence and accordingly will have to serve the entire 15 or 25 years in custody.
 
Relevance to “Bikies”
The recent anti-bikie legislation, including the VLAD Act, has been sold to the public as a necessary piece of legislative artillery in the Queensland Government’s “war on bikies”.  In the first week post the introduction of the Bills, the government has spent close to $800,000 on an extensive advertising campaign spreading the message that they have “drawn the line” on “Criminal Bikie Gangs.”
Contrary to the political spin, the extensive mandatory detention powers in the VLAD Act are not limited in any way to alleged “criminal bikie gangs”.  You do not have to be a member or associate of one of the 26 motorcycle clubs which have now been declared as criminal organisations to be classed as a vicious lawless associate. The declaration of these 26 clubs as criminal organisations and the resulting new criminal offences and increased penalties for their participants (such as the prohibition on 3 or more alleged bikies being together in a public place, an offence for which a person must now spend at least 6 months in custody if convicted) are part of a separate legislation scheme contained in the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act (“CLCOD”).  The ambit of the VLAD is in no way limited to members or associates of these clubs.
 
So then, who is a Vicious Lawless Associate?
A person is deemed to be a vicious lawless associate[4] if the following three conditions are satisfied:
 

1. The person commits a declared offence.
   

The relevant offences are listed in Schedule 1 of the VLAD. The listed offences include serious offences such as murder and various sexual offences but also include the offences of affray (which is taking part in a fight in public, a misdemeanour for which the maximum penalty is one year imprisonment); assault;[5] dangerous operation of a motor vehicle; receiving tainted property and possessing dangerous drugs.  It is not unusual for people with limited or no criminal history to be fined or to be sentenced to community based orders such as probation or community service rather than be imprisoned for these latter offences.
 

1. The person was a participant in the affairs of a relevant association when the offence was committed.
   

As flagged earlier, a relevant association is not a criminal bikie organisation. It is any corporation; unincorporated association; club or league; or group of 3 or more persons. The definition of a relevant association does not contain any requirement that the group, corporation, club, or 3 friends as the case may be, engaged in illegal activity. Groups such as school P&Cs, swimming clubs and RSLs are all relevant associations under the VLAD Act definitions.  As Queensland Law Society President Annette Bradfield noted, the legislation was so broad that it could apply to virtually any type of club or association.
 

1. The offence was committed in the course of participating in the affairs of the relevant association.
   

 
If these conditions are satisfied, a person is deemed to be a vicious lawful associate unless they can prove that engaging in certain offences is not one of purposes of the relevant association.
 
Our natural inclination may be to think that regardless of the broad initial definitions, the act will only catch career criminals who are in organisations whose clear purpose is to engage criminal behaviour, as has been alleged about by certain bikie clubs.  I think that it is highly unlikely that there is any organisation in existence in which declares that engaging in criminal activities is one of its purposes.  But significantly, the police and prosecution do not have to prove that one of the purposes of an organisation is engaging in criminal activities, the charged individual must prove that this is not the case.
 
Here are some practical examples of how the Act may apply in relatively minor situations.
 
Example 1
John Smith is a member of the Yeronga Bulls Rugby Union Club. After losing the elimination final to the Sherwood Falcons, John and his teammates head to the RE hotel for their official end-of-season function.  A number of the members of the Sherwood Falcons are also having (celebratory) drinks at the RE. During the course of the evening an argument breaks out between the two groups about the afternoon’s game. The argument turns physical and John is arrested for the offence of affray. John is an engineering student, with no criminal history. He pleads guilty in Brisbane Magistrates Court and receives a $1,500 fine with no conviction recorded.  Unfortunately for John, the VLAD act is enlivened.  His football club is a relevant association and he has committed the declared offence of affray while participating in the teams affairs at their official function.  Unless he can prove otherwise, he is a vicious lawful associate and will be required to serve 15 years in prison.
 
As mentioned previously, a natural reaction perhaps is to assume that John wouldn’t have a problem, as engaging in fights in public is not likely to be regarded to be one of the purposes of the Yeronga Bulls Reserves. But the Prosecution do not have to prove that it is. It is up to John to prove that this is not the case. Imagine then that John or any of his teammates had been involved in an altercation after a game on a previous occasion or that there had been any vaguely threatening text messages or face-book updates (from any of the team-mates) concerning the Sherwood Falcons or any other teams.  In those circumstances, there is a real prospect that John would be not be able to prove that he isn’t a vicious lawless associate, and accordingly the judge or magistrate would have no choice but to sentence John to 15 years imprisonment in addition to the fine.  If John happened to also be a treasurer of the club, he would be spend the next 25 years in jail.
 
Example 2
Daniel Jones is a member of the Northern Suburbs Commodore Car Enthusiasts Club.  Daniel engages in online forums on the organisation’s website and displays his car at the regular show and shine events. On one Thursday evening, during the show and shine, Daniel gets in his car and performs a burnout on the road.  He is seen by a passing police patrol and followed. Daniel attempts to evade the police for a short period of time during which he speeds. After being overtaken by the police vehicle he pulls over and is charged and pleads guilty to the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.  He is sentenced to a 6 month wholly suspended sentence in the District Court but because the offence was committed while he was participating in the affairs of the car club, unless he can prove otherwise he will be regarded as a vicious lawless associate and spend the next 15 or 25 in prison.  Again, if the police had previously been required to shut down show and shine events due to street racing or there were posts on the online forums in which burnouts, racing or other dangerous racing were boasted about, Daniel may have difficulty proving that dangerous driving was not a purpose of the club and will automatically spend 15 to 25 years in custody.
 
Concluding thoughts
The government has sold the VLAD Act to the public as a highly targeted piece of legislation, designed to disrupt and dismantle the illegal activities of outlaw motorcycle clubs. As the examples given in this article show, this is clearly not the case[6]. The incredibly broad drafting of the legislation and the fact that the onus of proof is on the defendant to prove that the association does not purposefully conduct illegal activities means that the act will apply in a whole host of circumstances which were never envisaged by the government, and individuals, who are by and large law abiding citizens, could find themselves behind bars for up to twenty-five years as a result of committing relatively minor offences.
 
The public debate on this issue has been largely been characterized by unhelpful name calling and hyperbole and amidst all this noise much of the real import of the legislation seems to have been glossed over. One thing that both sides would agree on, however, is that the legislation marks a significant change to Queensland’s legal landscape. That being the case, it is vitally important that the public is made aware of the ramifications of the new laws, so that it can engage in a considered and fully informed debate on the issue.
 

---

[1] The Tattoo Parlours Act 2013 and the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013 are the other pieces of anti-bikie legislation.
[2] Section 7(1)(b) of VLAD.
[3] Section 7(1)(c) of  VLAD.
[4] Section 5 of VLAD. 
[5] That is, assault occasioning bodily harm. Bodily harm means any bodily injury that interferes with health or comfort.
[6] The writer does not wish to suggest that if the effect of the legislation was confined to the government’s purported target then it would necessarily be either effective or worthwhile. There are significant problems with legislation that seeks to target a particular group in the community, be they outlaw motorcycle clubs or otherwise, and which mandates disproportionately severe sentences for members of these groups. That is, however, a topic for another article. This article seeks only to outline how the new legislation fails to confine itself to those groups specifically targeted by the government and the danger which this failure poses the entire community.

b12mick wrote:

madmax wrote:On a good sunny day that "hot" line is going to be "smoking hot" with hundreds of riders out and about at any one time.
And when the hot line is that busy and you can't get through, do you call off your ride? Or take a chance?

This has got to be the worst piece of anti-motorcycle legislation ever thought up. I can only hope it doesn't gain momentum and spread to the other states. Hopefully it will die an early death after it is found too hard to control

Here's the bigger issue.  It's not anti motorcycling, it's anti association.

Here have a read of this  http://www.guestlawyers.com.au/index.php/blog/are-you-a-vicious-lawless-associate.html

In the following post, barrister Anna Cappellano discusses the effect of the state government's recent Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act
 
The Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (“VLAD”) was the first piece of the Queensland Government’s controversial anti-bikie legislation.[1] 
 
What does the VLAD Act do?
The VLAD Act is an unprecedented mandatory sentencing regime. It provides that people who are defined as “vicious lawless associates” will automatically have to serve 15 years in prison in addition to their standard sentence.[2]  If they are deemed to be an officer bearer of the relevant association, they will automatically be required to serve 25 years in custody in addition to their standard sentence.[3] The mandatory additional sentence of 15 or 25 years imprisonment must be imposed even if the person is not sentenced to a period of imprisonment for the original offence.
Unless the person becomes an informer, they are not eligible for parole during the additional sentence and accordingly will have to serve the entire 15 or 25 years in custody.
 
Relevance to “Bikies”
The recent anti-bikie legislation, including the VLAD Act, has been sold to the public as a necessary piece of legislative artillery in the Queensland Government’s “war on bikies”.  In the first week post the introduction of the Bills, the government has spent close to $800,000 on an extensive advertising campaign spreading the message that they have “drawn the line” on “Criminal Bikie Gangs.”
Contrary to the political spin, the extensive mandatory detention powers in the VLAD Act are not limited in any way to alleged “criminal bikie gangs”.  You do not have to be a member or associate of one of the 26 motorcycle clubs which have now been declared as criminal organisations to be classed as a vicious lawless associate. The declaration of these 26 clubs as criminal organisations and the resulting new criminal offences and increased penalties for their participants (such as the prohibition on 3 or more alleged bikies being together in a public place, an offence for which a person must now spend at least 6 months in custody if convicted) are part of a separate legislation scheme contained in the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act (“CLCOD”).  The ambit of the VLAD is in no way limited to members or associates of these clubs.
 
So then, who is a Vicious Lawless Associate?
A person is deemed to be a vicious lawless associate[4] if the following three conditions are satisfied:
 

1. The person commits a declared offence.
   
   
   

The relevant offences are listed in Schedule 1 of the VLAD. The listed offences include serious offences such as murder and various sexual offences but also include the offences of affray (which is taking part in a fight in public, a misdemeanour for which the maximum penalty is one year imprisonment); assault;[5] dangerous operation of a motor vehicle; receiving tainted property and possessing dangerous drugs.  It is not unusual for people with limited or no criminal history to be fined or to be sentenced to community based orders such as probation or community service rather than be imprisoned for these latter offences.
 

1. The person was a participant in the affairs of a relevant association when the offence was committed.
   
   
   

As flagged earlier, a relevant association is not a criminal bikie organisation. It is any corporation; unincorporated association; club or league; or group of 3 or more persons. The definition of a relevant association does not contain any requirement that the group, corporation, club, or 3 friends as the case may be, engaged in illegal activity. Groups such as school P&Cs, swimming clubs and RSLs are all relevant associations under the VLAD Act definitions.  As Queensland Law Society President Annette Bradfield noted, the legislation was so broad that it could apply to virtually any type of club or association.
 

1. The offence was committed in the course of participating in the affairs of the relevant association.
   
   
   

 
If these conditions are satisfied, a person is deemed to be a vicious lawful associate unless they can prove that engaging in certain offences is not one of purposes of the relevant association.
 
Our natural inclination may be to think that regardless of the broad initial definitions, the act will only catch career criminals who are in organisations whose clear purpose is to engage criminal behaviour, as has been alleged about by certain bikie clubs.  I think that it is highly unlikely that there is any organisation in existence in which declares that engaging in criminal activities is one of its purposes.  But significantly, the police and prosecution do not have to prove that one of the purposes of an organisation is engaging in criminal activities, the charged individual must prove that this is not the case.
 
Here are some practical examples of how the Act may apply in relatively minor situations.
 
Example 1
John Smith is a member of the Yeronga Bulls Rugby Union Club. After losing the elimination final to the Sherwood Falcons, John and his teammates head to the RE hotel for their official end-of-season function.  A number of the members of the Sherwood Falcons are also having (celebratory) drinks at the RE. During the course of the evening an argument breaks out between the two groups about the afternoon’s game. The argument turns physical and John is arrested for the offence of affray. John is an engineering student, with no criminal history. He pleads guilty in Brisbane Magistrates Court and receives a $1,500 fine with no conviction recorded.  Unfortunately for John, the VLAD act is enlivened.  His football club is a relevant association and he has committed the declared offence of affray while participating in the teams affairs at their official function.  Unless he can prove otherwise, he is a vicious lawful associate and will be required to serve 15 years in prison.
 
As mentioned previously, a natural reaction perhaps is to assume that John wouldn’t have a problem, as engaging in fights in public is not likely to be regarded to be one of the purposes of the Yeronga Bulls Reserves. But the Prosecution do not have to prove that it is. It is up to John to prove that this is not the case. Imagine then that John or any of his teammates had been involved in an altercation after a game on a previous occasion or that there had been any vaguely threatening text messages or face-book updates (from any of the team-mates) concerning the Sherwood Falcons or any other teams.  In those circumstances, there is a real prospect that John would be not be able to prove that he isn’t a vicious lawless associate, and accordingly the judge or magistrate would have no choice but to sentence John to 15 years imprisonment in addition to the fine.  If John happened to also be a treasurer of the club, he would be spend the next 25 years in jail.
 
Example 2
Daniel Jones is a member of the Northern Suburbs Commodore Car Enthusiasts Club.  Daniel engages in online forums on the organisation’s website and displays his car at the regular show and shine events. On one Thursday evening, during the show and shine, Daniel gets in his car and performs a burnout on the road.  He is seen by a passing police patrol and followed. Daniel attempts to evade the police for a short period of time during which he speeds. After being overtaken by the police vehicle he pulls over and is charged and pleads guilty to the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.  He is sentenced to a 6 month wholly suspended sentence in the District Court but because the offence was committed while he was participating in the affairs of the car club, unless he can prove otherwise he will be regarded as a vicious lawless associate and spend the next 15 or 25 in prison.  Again, if the police had previously been required to shut down show and shine events due to street racing or there were posts on the online forums in which burnouts, racing or other dangerous racing were boasted about, Daniel may have difficulty proving that dangerous driving was not a purpose of the club and will automatically spend 15 to 25 years in custody.
 
Concluding thoughts
The government has sold the VLAD Act to the public as a highly targeted piece of legislation, designed to disrupt and dismantle the illegal activities of outlaw motorcycle clubs. As the examples given in this article show, this is clearly not the case[6]. The incredibly broad drafting of the legislation and the fact that the onus of proof is on the defendant to prove that the association does not purposefully conduct illegal activities means that the act will apply in a whole host of circumstances which were never envisaged by the government, and individuals, who are by and large law abiding citizens, could find themselves behind bars for up to twenty-five years as a result of committing relatively minor offences.
 
The public debate on this issue has been largely been characterized by unhelpful name calling and hyperbole and amidst all this noise much of the real import of the legislation seems to have been glossed over. One thing that both sides would agree on, however, is that the legislation marks a significant change to Queensland’s legal landscape. That being the case, it is vitally important that the public is made aware of the ramifications of the new laws, so that it can engage in a considered and fully informed debate on the issue.
 

---

[1] The Tattoo Parlours Act 2013 and the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013 are the other pieces of anti-bikie legislation.
[2] Section 7(1)(b) of VLAD.
[3] Section 7(1)(c) of  VLAD.
[4] Section 5 of VLAD. 
[5] That is, assault occasioning bodily harm. Bodily harm means any bodily injury that interferes with health or comfort.
[6] The writer does not wish to suggest that if the effect of the legislation was confined to the government’s purported target then it would necessarily be either effective or worthwhile. There are significant problems with legislation that seeks to target a particular group in the community, be they outlaw motorcycle clubs or otherwise, and which mandates disproportionately severe sentences for members of these groups. That is, however, a topic for another article. This article seeks only to outline how the new legislation fails to confine itself to those groups specifically targeted by the government and the danger which this failure poses the entire community.

b12mick wrote:

Baz wrote:Not that I support 1%ers ... their criminals. I just think a law allowing their deportation would be better than harrassing law abiding riders ... deportation to ??? who would take them ?     try deportation to Antartica, they could even take their bikes with them, and not just bikies, people who go around shooting 13 year olds in the back should also try their luck in the deep deep cold south.

Really? Every 1%er is a criminal? Really? I must ask some of my mates about their non-existent criminal record. You think deporting people that were born here is a good idea.  Fuck off.

Have a read of the legislation, you may be surprised to find out who it can be used against.  Basically anyone the government doesn't like can have this legislation used against them. 

I'm not defending criminals.  I firmly believe acts of crime should be investigated and if enough evidence it gathered, that evidence should be presented to a court of law. If the person(s) are found guilty, fair enough.  If they are found not guilty, that is also fair enough. That is how our legal system is supposed to work.

What Herr Newman and Herr Bleijie have done with this legislation is removed the courts from the process of declaring an organisation or individual to be criminal.  In order to be 'on the list' your organisations name is simply added by the Attorney General.  Now court appearances, no opportunity to defend yourself, BANG with the stroke of a pen you're a criminal.

This legislation removes and individuals right to a fair trial, it removes their right to be treated equal under the law, it removes a persons right to freedom of movement, it removes a persons right to freedom of association.

And all this to combat less the 0.6% of crime.  That's right 0.6% of crime.  Wow. What laws will they introduce to combat the other 99.4% of crime.

car_ham wrote:
Word of caution, don't always believe what you read. The author of the above seems to have missed the following, which happens to be the next paragraph in the Act.


2) However, a person is not a vicious lawless associate if the



person proves that the relevant association is an association



whose members do not have as their purpose, or 1 of their



purposes, engaging in, or conspiring to engage in, declared



offences.



Therefore the above example are not correct, the footy club, the car club or the church (comment below) does not have as their purpose of engaging in the declared offence.

b12mick wrote:Don't worry about it.  We all go off half cocked from time to time.

Interesting though that the 13yr old wasn't shot by a member of a 1% Bike club, but in fact a member of a true street gang.

car_ham wrote:This article is another side of the story, and I know this will offend many in this forum, but it is a view point I agree with. I put money on it in 12 months time, it will have all settled down, grannies at church will not have been locked up for 25 yrs, however the real criminal element will have been given a bit of a touch up by the law. The day I am proven wrong, i.e. we suddenly have a spate of church goers, car club members, rugby players being locked up for 25 yrs, then I will scream as loud as the rest.

I can remember many years ago when good friends of mine had to take their 2 yrs old to hospital with burn to her hand when she pulled an iron off an ironing board. They were very angry that at the hospital they had been questions about the injury being a true accident, or if it could have been abuse. I agreed that this was a very unpleasant thing for a loving parent to go through, but as I explained to them, if that level of questioning resulted in one child abuser being caught, then it was worth it.

More recently and before the crackdown, I was pulled over by a local traffic cop, and she was completely honest that it was because I was riding a bike. Her reasoning was that there was a particularly high number of riders  where either unlicensed or riding bikes  with a capacity above their licence limit. She was pleasant about the whole thing, apologised for the interruption to my day once all the checks had been made. Had the same thing happened today, to someone else, I put my left one on it that that person would have cried harassment and linked it to the new laws.

http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/victims-bikie-laws-youve-gotta-be-joking/2074298/