The Queensland Govts VLAD law was upheld today in the High Court when the UMC's challenge was dismissed.

The UMC Lawyers will release a statement soon that will explain the nuts and bolts of the decision but it appears 

to hinge largely on the fact that Stefan Kuczborski's challenge was invalid because he wasnt charged with any

VLAD offence. There is certainly much more in the transcripts below for those that want to wade through the jargon.

The Headlines...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/vlad-high-court-rejects-challenge-to-queensland-antibikie-laws/story-fnn8dlfs-1227122341122  

The Findings....

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/46.html

 

Well hmm , so where's it headed from here?
No doubt there will be lots of comments ,siding with both sides. I actually don't know where I stand on this. I FEAR that the so called 1% clubs have lost the creditability in the face from a "Joe Public" side. All they see is media hype surrounding shootings and drugs and shit and lets be honest anyone who's been around KNOWS that there has and will always been some pretty dodgy shit involving the 1% clubs. Shootings in public places, METH ( a scourge on our civilisation that is almost carcinogenic).From my own experiences I think that when the 1 % clubs stopped wearing the rocker that said WHITE POWER,( anyone remember ?) things really changed and they became a haven for any "would be if they could be "crim regardless of Bike.,ethnicity or color.There's also the Terrorist shit going on world wide that the government has to deal with ( no easy task),Ive associated with 2 so called outlaw Bikie clubs in my day. Some really good mates and still in touch to this day.Used to be called bikies if they wore a patch and bikers if they didn't. I've gone thru the Helmet laws panics, the "Chop Chop "fiascos( Illegal tobacco) truckies big time involved in that one. Of course my thoughts rest with those that break no laws and this legislation affects them and there businesses but to be honest, if yas put a target on ya back , why is it surprising that ya get shot at? The worlds changed, We face massive security issues on a global scale, people CANT run around playing cowboys and Indians .Ill put it to yas this way that perhaps the " Bikie" clubs ,I don't like the term 1% haven't moved with the times? Perhaps there recruiting is flawed with the wrong types joining just to continue illegal activities? Ive always been a tear away but I do have to provide for a family and Im in business so I have to be seen as a "White Hat". These days if ya choose to wear a " Black Hat" ( reference to those old cowboy westerns where the sherriff always wore a white hat and the baddies always wore a black one) its looking like ya gonna cop heaps of shit and really who needs it? For what?ll be FUCKED if some powder /shard dealer is welcome in my life ,Having said that I know plenty of "Old School" bikies that feel same as me. Its like ya torn between two loyalties and don't want to give up either. I hear these laws will start government clampin down on your rights etc but seriously , Ive heard it all before with Damian and the Helmet laws , NRMA and what not..Ide rather wear a helmet myself. I DO believe Governments are elected by the people so I generally don't whine , I merely vote and gets on with my life. By definition by claiming an "Outlaw status" should you really expect the rest of the community to Band together to help you fight ya battles when the shit hits the fan which I might add is surely to happen? This all started when the Bikies told Campbell Newman that " We control the Gold Coast Not you "To say that to an Ex Army drill Sargent was never going to end well. Specially when hes the Premier and Specially when he has unlimited resources at his disposal and they have WHAT? Fuck all.2 things have always shitted me off about Bikie clubs is ,1 they now deal in powders and as a parent that's or should be every parents worst nightmare and 2 they steel motorcycles, Harley Davidsons in particular. The rest of what they do I couldn't give two fucks about. Im putting this out there for comment and no doubt get Caps locked typing and insults and all that shit but hey , Im up for it. Part of a democratic society we all live in is the " Freedom of Speech" Personally I reckon the Bikies should get themselves a new PR Agent, everyone's got one these days lol Cheers and stay safe.

NRMA ... Correction NMRA

Thanks Bonkerz,
sorry mates, I get out of the truck on Friday night and Im fucked. My Mrs reckons to me this morning.
Punctuation is the difference between " Helping your uncle Jack off a horse "and " Helping your uncle Jack , off a horse " lol cracked me up.

Yeah some valid points and also some assumed points but everyone has an opinion.

Your exercising your freedom of speech which FOR NOW you do still have but for how long?
I personally dont think it will take 5 years for clubs to disappear, some will always be around but not as visible others will never be seen.
there are elements of criminality in all walks of life including the blue gang and more so in white collar.
Some people should watch the documovie "the inside job" if you really want to see the real enemies in life.

All this is just my thoughts and my opinion.

Cheers

No one would deny a fair amount of your thoughts are generally on the money Robbdasnake.
Where the only issue is for many is that generalisations are just that, generalisations. There are 44 clubs around Australia listed by the Aust Crime Commision as 'outlaw', '1%', or more recently 'criminal gangs' (They dont like using the term 'outlaw' any more, they believe there is a romantic notion to the word...ala Ned Kelly....their words not mine.)
Often the same half dozen to a dozen of the clubs figure in continuing headlines, including the incidents you mentioned. Of course the counter to all that is there are dozens of clubs who never or very rarely figure in any police actions or media exposure. Most of those clubs still retain the 'old school' mindset you speak of, are not recruiting any and everybody and keep to themselves, only being seen when on the road on a run.
The legislative attack on the radical elements within some of the higher profile clubs has a massive ripple effect through ALL clubs, those deserving and those not. That is just how it is in clubland, not ideal but the old adage of 'never complain - never explain' has contributed to this blanket witchunt.
There's been suggestions that the clubs themselves are the only ones that can clean up their act, true enough, but only for each individual club to ponder....not for clubs to enforce on each other.
As you would well know Robb part of being a club member is to let well paid, adequately resourced, government enforcers do their best without any help and just trust that your own lack of nefarious behaviour will keep you out of the courts.......well now, while that method has worked ok for 4 decades for most long term members times have a' changed..now, just membership, nothing more, will get you prison time, whether or not you have ever been in a court in your life, or whether or not anyone in your club has either.
Crime is not exclusive to motorcycle clubs, 0.03 of a percent is all that they contribute to overall crime stats even though it seems 50% of media reporting on crime points to 'bikies' yet we hear a lot less on who's doing the 'other 99.7%.
The politicalisation and demonising of the motorcycling culture has proven to be a vote winner in tight elections. Mike Rann in SA started it on the run in to the 2002 election and just got in, by 2006 after he had introduced his SOCCA act he recorded a landslide victory....and after the 2010 loss in the High Court when his SOCCA act got dumped he followed it out the door not too far behind. Of course other factors also played their role in his demise but his 'law&order' platform got him there....and many other state Premiers have seen the value in the 'politics of fear - identify the enemy -introduce a solution- be rewarded at the ballot box on polling day.
You certainly are right about 'Freedom of Speech' Robb.....and to many bikers out there 'Freedom of Association'...the right to choose your own friends is equally important.

Agree on all counts mates
I do know how much legal representation costs first hand. A barrister will cost a minimum of 5 large a day and he wont act with out a solicitor with him another 2 large ( sort of like a bookies penciller) I think. Add to that even get them to write a fuckin letter costs 80 bucks each time ,same with a phone call and the cost of such a legal defence soon gets way high. One must suspect the legal advice and representation was never on the money if they didn't do there homework on the case? It seems the judgment didn't address the laws but the person involved .I don't know , Im in no way legal savvy , crept Ive been on the paying end a few times .Personally I think a decent mouthpiece should have taken on such a high profile case just for the Kudos and publicity ,like some one like that Geoffrey Archer guy? And lets not forget the media.. where do we start with them. They don't report on the facts any more , its all an opinion along the lines off which side of politics there station owners or publishers feel is the TONE of the thing. And Im probably out of touch with it all these days anyway. I definitely am enjoying the discussion and everyone's views . I dont think this is the end of it by a country mile. Cheers .

Too true, Many in the scene are convinced that the prohibitive costs that legal challenges accrue are a part of the Govts strategy....they are probably working on getting a default win eventually when the UMC's funds are gone and its impossible to mount a case. A generous QC who would consider some pro bono work would be a change....but never gunna happen.
I reckon you may be referring to Geoffrey Robertson, a world class human rights lawyer, but I wonder what his fees would amount too ? The QC Ken Fleming with Wayne Baffsky assisting were a pretty formidable team acting for the UMC but they were up against the entire Solicitor Generals dept from every State...19 highly qualified silks in all...not a fair fight at all when you take on Govts. The UMC's challenge cost over a million and now that the Govts costs have been added to the UMC's bill it dont look to good for any future attempt.
When the challenge was first mounted no club member had actually been charged under the VLAD Act so they put up a HA member with no convictions to be the name on the case. A big part of the legal argument centered around the 'hypothetical' element of his challenge. Many precedent cases of allowed hypotheticals were introduced to the High Court and of course the State Govt team introduced many precedent hypotheticals that were dissallowed.....Eventually the majority, but not all, of the High Court judges voted to make this application one of the dissallowed hypotheticals, simple as that.
This situation may well end up being a bad law that stays because no-one can afford to have it challenged, not ideal, but certainly not the first time. You are correct in your first post of there being little support in the general community for clubs and their legal plight, the Govt strategists are counting on that staying that way....hence the continuing media barrage on anything 'bikie' leading the headlines.
The only positive in enduring these courtroom battles with populist political parties is that they get rotated out of power reasonably regularly...and when that happens the next mob in wanna put their own stamp on legislation that 'fixes' so-called problems rather than run the last mobs flawed attempt........Meanwhile we all just get on with living and ridin shakin our heads at all the bad shit going on behind the clergys cloaks and in the official corridors while the focus is on escorting a bunch of bikes up and down highways putting on a gestapo display for the voter.

As members of the Legal fraternity dissect the nearly 70 page judgement  their summaries are slowly making their way into the media..

http://theconversation.com/high-court-invites-fresh-challenge-to-queenslands-bikie-laws-31103 

The VLAD laws were not upheld by the High Court. The challenge was thrown out because the challenger had no legal grounds to challenge the laws. If someone who was actually charged under the laws was the challenger, the case would have gone ahead. Legal counsel should have realised this. As it is, it's a huge waste of time and money and will be a lot harder to find the funds to finance a legitimate challenge.

Hi,

is this right that no one been charged under VLAD Act?

thanks
robots

Hi,

Thanks
Robots

Go to around 33.42 of the link and listen to the words of wisdom, maybe Qld Gov should listen.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52ZPlDSmEj4

Hi,

Just been reading the ucmq site and the lawyer saying he 'BELIEVES someone has been charged" under the VLAD Act, would be good to get clarification on if anybody has been charged under VLAD,

Would of thought these people know if individuals have been charged

Personally i feel they gone after the wrong Act and should have focused more on the Crime Act( the one which deals with 3 people in public place, clubrooms etc)

VLAD is about commiting an offence from the Declared Offences list, like rape, murder, prostitution, fraud, vicious assult etc,

Thanks
Robots

This is a recent statement I found from Wayne Baffsky that outlines what the situation was.

 "  http://Wayne Baffsky About the 'standing' issue. When the Qld government brought in their raft of so called 'anti-bikie' laws last year there was, if I recall, well over 20 new laws and amendments. There was considerable pressure to do something about these laws. During the course of preparing the appeal there was no one who had been charged with an offence under the VLAD Act. This is not to be confused with what has been colloquially called the 'VLAD laws'. An offence under the VLAD Act is different from offences under the Criminal Code, the Liquor Act or the variety of other laws. We had been trying to find someone who had actually been charged under the VLAD Act, but had no luck. The first person who had been charged with a VLAD Act offence was charged not long before the appeal was to be heard. There was no way we could find that person, see if he would be a part of the challenge and risk paying costs if he loses and assess whether he had an appropriate case and, more importantly, amend the challenge to include the new grounds without the appeal being adjourned until next year. The High Court had made it clear to us that if we did not take the September date then the appeal would be adjourned to next year. An adjournment was not acceptable to anyone. The appeal could not have been run any differently as no one had been charged with a VLAD Act offence until too late to be a part of the appeal and those people who had been charged with the new offences were not charged under the VLAD Act. "    

A significant part of the challenge did in fact focus on the Criminal Code Act. especially section 60A  60B  60C,  the 'criminal organisation' component of this suite of Laws.  They were judged to be lawfull under the Kable principal as was the Liquor Act that was also challenged  (see paragraphs 35 to 49 in the judgement)

Edit:  Greg Hirsts internet radio show 'Ride' tonight (tues 18th) at 7pm Syd. 6pm Qld. 6.30 SA has an interview with Wayne Baffsky on this challenge and whats next.....

http://alive905.com.au/    

 

 

Good enough reason for listening in to Baffsky's interview tonight...he may help unconfuse the issue for you Robots.

hi,

http://alive905.com.au/listen/listen-again/ride-cpod/

can listen here, still get the impression from podcast that no one has been charged with an offence under VLAD Act

looks like a few eyebrows have been raised over costs, directive to procede with case

all the hysteria of VLAD Act and not one individual been charged? 

thanks

robots

I took from Baffskys accounts that proceeding with the case was paramount, and a direction given to them from the High Court regarding a delay until next year forced their hand to act swiftly, rather than wait to find, and study, the details of anyone charged. Because the appeal was more about the 'colloquially so-called VLAD Laws', a suite of Laws including the Criminal Code and Liquor Act as well as the 'VLAD Act' and many people such as the 'Dayboro Three' and the 'Yandina Five' and many others had been charged and were held in custody under the 'suite of laws' there was an urgency to seek a judgement swiftly.
Now as we all know in hindsight the standing issue didnt go Stefan Kuczborski's way in regard to the Vlad Act but did in the appeal on parts of the Criminal Code and Liquor Act....the Acts that many current cases were hinging on. It was certainly a damned if you do.. damned if you dont action. The appeal was not successful ...but not wasted....decisions were made regarding section 60A, 60B and 60C of the Criminal Code and sections 173EB 173EC and 173ED of the Liquor Act so if and when there is another appeal if and when someone charged under the VLAD Act is put forward then there can also be another challenge on the Criminal Code and Liquor Act using a different argument.
I thought Greg Hirst as a responsible commentator asked all the right questions regarding the decisions surrounding this appeal, questions he knew listeners would ask if they were there...the decision to proceed, the costs, and why it didnt work.... and I thought Baffsky answered them adequately.
No one likes losing a case..especially in the High Court...I remember well the hullabaloo in the SA and NSW parliaments and press when those two Govts lost their 'bikie laws' cases in 2010 and 2011. funnily enough costs, decision to appeal, and poorly constructed argument were many of the accusations hurled at them too..go figure.

Hi G-G 74,

Is it possible to get a club struck off the list of criminal organisations? Is the achievable, or the unknown

Thanks

Robots

If we are to believe the Govt spin that was released when the Vlad Laws were initiated a club can be struck off 'the list' once it doesnt exist.
While that may sound all well and good from the pollies perspective its not particularly comforting for a club that has no serious criminal
history amongst its members, nor any way to refute the declaration.
The accuracy of the 'list' is highly questionable, just the fact that there is no such club called the Scorpions....there once was a street gang in Perth by that name
but dont appear to be listed in any groups of interest by police in WA. Also named in the list of 26 is Notorious...a defunct NSW gang from several years back, which
was more street than motorcycle. So whilst the legislation is Queensland based, every single NSW based Club has been included, even clubs that do not, nor ever
have had a presence in Queensland....interesting indeed. High Court justice Kenneth Hayne found the declaration process offended the separation of powers and was the
dissenting judge in last weeks ruling.