Legal essay – David Hicks and Bikes
The legal system has responded to the challenges created by contemporary issues we have studied in class recently such as David Hicks and Bikies in multiple ways and areas. There are 3 categories legal responses to organised motorcycle gangs fall into, these are; passing laws to prosecute individuals for the specific crime that they have committed, such as assault, drug offences or money laundering. The second being creating police task forces or police powers to gather intelligence and target their activities. And third being enacting laws that aim to criminalise the club themselves or participate in the clubs. In NSW, our approach, there have been numerous changes to the law and legislation since the 1984 Milperra massacre. There are cases like the 2006 Russell Oldham case and the 2007 violence between the Commoncheros and Bandidos. These cases show the public, violent faces of some OMG’s activities. The black market criminal activities of OMG’s business, the trade in illegal drug or firearms, or illegal financial activities like money laundering and extortion are often not as well known to the public. Laws targeting organisations and memberships are probably the most debated approach to OMG’s is the introduction of laws that target or criminalise the clubs themselves rather than the individual crimes committed. In effect, this approach ‘outlaws’ motorcycle gangs in the true sense. This approach is most controversial where the law attempts to criminalise individual membership of our association with such clubs.
As David Hicks case has cast a shadow over the previous government and its neglect of the state’s responsibilities to defend the rights of citizens and uphold the fundamental pillars of justice. David’s lawyer said his client’s mental state is fragile after years in detention at Guantanamo Bay, this is understandable. The Howard government responded by sacrificing a once inviolable judicial principle to the interests of maintaining the alliance in affect, the presumption of innocence was dumped. It was argued that key rights under the rule of law are suspended in a war or terror.