RULE OF LAW
INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA
Legal Responses to
Criminal Organisations
in NSW
Contents
The Rule of Law Principle in Australia
2
The Consorting Law in NSW
3
4
Cartoon: How to Avoid Consorting with Criminal Offenders in NSW
Legal Response: Control Orders and Criminal Organisations
5
The History of the CCOCA Laws in NSW
6
Rule of Law Concerns about Consorting CCOCA 2012
7
Balancing the Needs of Society with the Rights of the Individual
8
Law Reform Issue: Changes to the Right to Silence in NSW
9
Glossary10
Suggested Reading
11
Legislation and Case law By Year
12
Legislation and Case Law By State
13
The Rule of Law Institute of Australia is an independent not-for-profit organisation which
promotes discussion of rule of law issues in Australia. It seeks to uphold transparency
and accountability in government and strongly supports the presumption of innocence,
independence of the judiciary and procedural fairness in the Australian legal system.
For further information visit our website: www.ruleoflaw.org.au
Have a question about this resource or a rule of law issue?
Ask us on Facebook or Twitter: ‘Rule of Law Institute of Australia’ / @RoLAustralia
What is
the Rule
of Law?
The principles in the
pyramid are essential
parts of the rule of law
in Australia.
All are important in
promoting confidence
in Government, and
protecting the rights of
individuals.
Operation of
the rule of law
promotes a
stable economy
and happy
citizens.
LAW
GOVERNMENT
The separation of powers in
Australia ensures that power is
balanced between the three arms
of government and that there are
checks on their use of power.
The
Judiciary
is
especially
important in ensuring the integrity
of the Australian Constitution and
that the Legislature and Executive
If people believe the law is unjust, act according to the law.
they may not want to follow it.
Executive
Ideally people should feel the law
Judiciary
is just and want to follow it.
Legislature
The process of changing the law
through democratic processes
ensures that the law remains up to
date with the needs of society.
LAW
Maintaining the rule of law is often
noted as being the best way to
preserve human rights.
LAW
LAW LAW
The rule of law is a legal concept
which requires the use of power to
be controlled by the law to ensure
equality before the law.
The Consorting Law in NSW
What is consorting?
Purpose of Law Reform
Consorting with criminal offenders is an offence
under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). It allows the
police to prosecute a person who has ‘consorted’
with at least two convicted offenders on two separate
occasions.
The consorting offence was introduced to target criminal
organisations such as outlaw motorcycle gangs, and
prevent their members from associating.
Defences to Consorting
A person must prove to the court that the consorting
Police must give an oral or written warning to was reasonable. Circumstances such as consorting with
a person to inform them that the people they are a family member, in the course of lawful employment,
associating with are convicted offenders.
training or education, and during the provision of
health care or legal advice are the defences to consorting
included in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
legal terminology involved in defining the consorting charge:
consort - to associate with a person, including by electronic or other form of communication.
convicted offender - a person who has been found guilty of an indictable offence.
habitually consort - to consort with at least 2 convicted offenders, on two separate occasions.
official warning - a oral or written warning from a police officer given to inform a person that a convicted
offender is a convicted offender, and that consorting with them is an offence.
Rewrite the following sentence into a paragraph to include the terminology used in the consorting offence:
A person must habitually consort with convicted offenders after receiving an official warning from
NSW Police.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Legal Responses to Criminal Organisations in NSW
_______________________________________
3
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Case: R v Foster [2012] Local Court NSW
Charles Foster was the first person to be found guilty of
consorting with convicted offenders in July 2012.
Foster had ‘consorted’ with convicted offenders who
were long time friends, one of which he was living with
at the time. He had no links with criminal organisations
despite having served time in jail for other offences.
He received a sentence of 12 months with a non-parole
period of 9 months. He appealed his conviction in the
District Court of NSW and was allowed a retrial.
High ranking members of the Nomads Motorcycle
Club were charged with consorting in late 2012. Foster
has joined an appeal against the consorting laws in the
NSW Supreme Court.
As of June 2013 that matter is yet to come before the
court.
www.ruleoflaw.org.au
RoLIA
You
Calling...
END CALL
Convicted
Offenders
ANSWER
Innocent
Person
Incoming
Call
Convicted
Offender
1
Convicted
Offender
?
?
4
Police
You
If you are caught consorting police may charge you.
If proven in court you could go to jail for up to 3
years. There are defences you can use if you have
been consorting with certain people, but you must
satisfy the court it was reasonable provided: a family
member, a coworker, a teacher or fellow student, a
doctor or a lawyer.
You
To help police in the fight against organised crime, you
can now be charged for consorting with convicted offenders.
Be on your guard: a convicted offender is someone
who has been found guilty of an indictable offence!
After you have been warned you still need to consort with
the convicted offenders on at least two separate occasions.
Beware: this includes over electronic forms of
communication like SMS, email, or telephone.
3
A guide from the
Rule of Law Institute of Australia
HOW TO AVOID CONSORTING
WITH CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
IN
NSW
(to be in company with)
CONSORTING & You
RoLIA www.ruleoflaw.org.au
Police
G!!
You
IN
WARN
Convicted
Offender
Convicted
Offender
5
Be careful not to associate with
convicted offenders!
You
Consorting with criminal offenders is serious business. You
might end up in prison and become a convicted offender
yourself.
To be found guilty of consorting it must be proven you
consorted with at least 2 convicted offenders. Before
you can be charged, police must warn you in writing or
in person that the people you are consorting with are
convicted offenders!
2
Cartoon: How to Avoid Consorting with Criminal Offenders in NSW
Legal Response: Control Orders and Criminal Organisations
T
he Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012 (NSW) called CCOCA 2012 provides a legal process
for an organisation, such as a motorcycle club, to be declared as being involved in serious criminal
activity. This process allows control orders to be made to prevent its members from associating, recruiting
new members or working in certain occupations.
Evidence of an organisation’s involvement in serious criminal
activity is supplied for the Supreme Court of NSW to consider
whether to make a declaration against an organsation. If a
declaration is made the NSW Police can apply for control orders
against individual members of the declared organisation.
A controlled member cannot:
• associate with another controlled member of the
organisation
• recruit new members for the organisation
• use or possess a firearm
or work as a:
Punishment for Breaching
a Control Order
It is a criminal offence to breach a control
order and carries a penalty of up to 3 years
imprisonment for a first offence and 5
years for a second offence.
To prove a breach of the control order police
only need to show the person associated
with another controlled member, not that
they associated to plan or participate in
any criminal activity.
tow truck driver, bouncer, body guard, security guard, private detective, debt collector, employee or
operator of a casino, pawn broker, motor vehicle dealer or repairer, seller or supplier of liquor, operator of
or employee in a tattoo parlour, bookmaker, jockey, owner or trainer of horses and grey hounds.
Legal Process in CCOCA 2012
1
Information is
Declared
Criminal Intelligence
• The NSW Police make an application to the Supreme Court of NSW to have
information declared criminal intelligence
• The hearing to declare criminal intelligence is a closed hearing. Members
of the public are not allowed to attend, and those who are the subject of the
information may not participate.
• A retired judge/lawyer is appointed as the criminal intelligence monitor
and can make submission about the validity of the application
Legal Responses to Criminal Organisations in NSW
2
5
Police Apply for
Declaration of
Organisation
• An application is made by the NSW Police Commissioner to have an
organisation declared under the CCOCA.
• If criminal intelligence is used in the application to declare the organisation,
members of that organisation cannot be present when that information is
before the court.
• If successful, the declaration allows control orders to be made for members
of the organisation. A declaration lasts for 5 years.
3
Police Apply for
Control Orders
Against Individuals
• Individuals are served with control orders which prohibit them from
associating with other controlled members of the organisation, and from
engaging in certain forms of work
• A control order remains in force until it is revoked by the court
• A control order can be appealed within 28 days of it being made
www.ruleoflaw.org.au
RoLIA
The History of the CCOCA Laws in NSW
T
he CCOCA laws have changed significantly since 2009 when the first Crimes
Purpose of CCOCA
(Criminal Organisations Control ) Act 2009 (CCOCA 2009) was introduced
• Destroy the chain of
in response to a number of drive-by shootings and the bashing murder of a
command and disrupt
Hells Angels associate during a confrontation between the Hells Angels and
the criminal activities of
Comancheros at Sydney Airport.
organisations by making
it a criminal offence
The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club was the first (and only) organisation to
for their members to
associate
be declared under the CCOCA 2009. A former President of the club, Derek
Wainohu, challenged the laws in the High Court of Australia in 2010 and was
successful in having the CCOCA 2009 struck down in Wainohu v NSW [2011] • Give police and the
courts broader powers
HCA 24.
and offences to deal with
criminal organisations
In that case, six of the seven High Court Judges found CCOCA 2009 was invalid
because it did not require written reasons for declaring an organisation. The • To
prevent
violent
High Court found that this was inconsistent with the ‘institutional integrity’
incidents such as drive by
of the Supreme Court of NSW under Chapter III of the Australian Constitution.
shootings, intimidation
and
other
serious
‘Institutional integrity’ means that courts in Australia must have certain essential
violence
offences
characteristics, one of which is that judges must give reasons for their decisions.
CCOCA 2012 was passed in March 2012 and is the same as CCOCA 2009 except it requires judges to give
reasons for their declarations.
In March 2013, following the failure of a challenge to Queensland’s equivalent of CCOCA 2012, amendments
to CCOCA 2012 were passed which broadened the definition of serious criminal activity, and lengthened
the duration of a declaration from 3 to 5 years. The most significant amendment was to the process of having
information used for a declaration made into criminal intelligence. See the previous page for details on the
process of declaring criminal intelligence and criminal organisations, and the making of control orders.
Legal Responses to Criminal Organisations in NSW
CCOCA, the High Court and
the Separation of Powers
6
In Wainohu v NSW [2010] the High
Court ruled that the CCOCA 2009 laws
went against the institutional integrity
of the courts because when declaring an
organisation the judge was not required
to give reasons. Giving reasons for a
decision is an essential part of the role of
judges.
The role of the courts in dealing with
crime is to hear cases, interpret the law
and provide a sentence according to the
law if the accused is found guilty.
The consorting and CCOCA laws are examples of the NSW Parliament passing laws which change the role of
the courts. These offences aim to prevent crime, not punish crimes which have been committed. Whether this
use of the courts is compatible under the Australian Constitution and the rule of law may be decided in future
High Court cases.
www.ruleoflaw.org.au
RoLIA
Rule of Law Concerns about Consorting CCOCA 2012
The Rule of Law Institute of Australia has the following concerns about the consorting offence and
the CCOCA 2012:
Consorting with Criminal Offenders
CCOCA 2012
• A person found guilty is charged with the act of
associating which is of itself not a criminal act.
• The presumption that people are innocent until
proven guilty is removed by the CCOCA. This
means that a person can be imprisoned for
breaching a control order without ever being
found guilty of a criminal offence
• The amount of people in the community who
are convicted offenders makes the possible
application of this offence very broad.
• The offence was introduced to target members
of criminal organisations, however, it is defined
broadly and can be used widely at the Police’s
discretion to target people not involved with
criminal organisations.
• Punishing someone with imprisonment for
associating with convicted offenders is not
productive given they will spend more time with
convicted offenders in jail
• The convicted offenders involved in proving the
offence are being indirectly punished for who
they are, not what they have done.
• Information which does not follow the rules of
evidence can form the basis of a control order hearsay is allowed
• Information used for declarations can be declared
as ‘criminal intelligence’ which cannot be seen or
challenged by the subject of the control order.
It is a key aspect of procedural fairness that a
person can question evidence or information
used against them
• If evidence is available that a person is involved
with serious criminal activity; they should be
charged with the relevant criminal offence, not
for the act of associating.
The Rule of Law Institute of Australia is an independent not-for-profit organisation which promotes discussion
of rule of law issues in Australia. It seeks to uphold transparency and accountability in government and
strongly supports the presumption of innocence, independence of the judiciary and procedural fairness in the
Australian legal system.
Discussion
Legal Responses to Criminal Organisations in NSW
How far should laws go to ensure public safety?
• Laws which give police powers to search seize property, and conduct surveillance?
7
• Laws which make it an offence to associate with people who have criminal records?
• The power to force someone to answer questions and punish them with imprisonment if they do not answer,
or answer falsely?
• The right to detain and question people even if they are not suspected of a crime?
The rule of law requires that the use of power is ___________________ and those who
use them are ___________________.
All people are entitled to the presumption of ___________________, and can only be punished if they are
found ___________________ of an offence.
www.ruleoflaw.org.au
RoLIA
Balancing the Needs of Society with the Rights of the Individual
Organised crime and violence should not be tolerated in Australian society. The courts and police should
be able to prosecute criminal organisations to protect the public from violence and criminal activities;
however, there is a delicate balance between protecting the public and trampling on rights and freedoms.
Limits to Individual Rights
• The presumption of innocence is eroded because
control orders allow a person to be imprisoned
simply for associating with someone
• While there are good reasons to keep criminal
intelligence secret, its use in this way erodes the
principle of open justice, including the principle
that a person should be able to see and question
the evidence against them
• If evidence exists of individuals being involved
in serious criminal activity, they should be
charged with existing criminal offences, not for
just associating with others. This entitles them
to the protections of the criminal trial process.
Possible Solutions
• Law reform and government should focus on
ways to support the police prosecuting members
of criminal organisations for criminal offences,
not an offence which relies on criminalising
association.
• Law enforcement agencies already have
extensive powers allowing surveillance, search
and seizure of goods, as well as compelling
people to answer questions. Are anti-association
laws necessary when such extensive powers are
already available to law enforcement agencies?
• Placing a sunset clause on the consorting offence
and CCOCA which asks Parliament to review
the effectiveness of the law after a fixed period.
Practice Questions
a) Identify the legal responses to criminal organisations in NSW since 2009.
1. ____________________________________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________________________________________
3. ____________________________________________________________________________________
Legal Responses to Criminal Organisations in NSW
4. ____________________________________________________________________________________
8
b) Describe the process of obtaining a control order on a member of a criminal organisation.
c) Explain how the consorting laws and CCOCA can limit individual rights.
d) Assess whether the consorting and CCOCA laws can provide just outcomes for individuals and society.
www.ruleoflaw.org.au
RoLIA
Law Reform Issue: Changes to the Right to Silence in NSW
What changed?
The Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) was amended to allow
a judge to direct a jury to draw an ‘unfavourable
inference’ if the accused does not mention something
when questioned by police.
if the person is charged with an offence carrying a
penalty of 5 years or more imprisonment.
The special caution and unfavourable inference
cannot be used in the trial of a person who is under
The person must be given the special caution by police 18 years of age.
in the presence of their lawyer which can only be used
New Special Caution
Old Caution
“I am going to ask you some
questions. You do not have to
say or do anything unless you
wish to do so but anything you
do say will be used in evidence.”
“You are under arrest for ________. You do not
have to say or do anything unless you wish to do so,
anything you do say will used in evidence. It may harm
your defence if you do not mention when questioned
something you later rely on in court.”
What is a ‘jury direction’?
At the end of a trial the judge directs the jury on what it must consider
when deliberating. See the Judicial Commission of NSW’s Bench
Book on instructing juries about the right to silence:
http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/silence-evidence_of.html
Note: this version does not yet include suggested directions for judges
to use with the new special caution.
What is an ‘unfavourable inference’?
The judge can instruct the jury to use the accused’s
silence when questioned as evidence of guilt or that
their evidence is unreliable.
An unfavourable inference cannot be the only factor
in deciding guilt, other evidence must be provided
by the prosecution.
Pre-trial Disclosure
Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Act 2013 (NSW)
Makes the defence and prosecution provide details of their case to each other before the trial. Previously, the
defence only had to reveal specific aspects of their case pre-trial such as alibis and if they intended to offer the
defence of mental impairment.
Police have stated that these laws will allow them to deal more effectively with the ‘wall of silence’ they
encounter when prosecuting criminal organisations.
Evaluate and Discuss
Legal Responses to Criminal Organisations in NSW
Benefits
9
To the prosecution - silence of
the accused can form evidence
of guilt. This places pressure on
a defendant to answer questions
pre-trial, and anything new they
do say during the trial is subject
to an ‘unfavourable inference’.
May reduce the length and
complexity of some trials by
discouraging a defendant from
raising new evidence.
The defence cannot ‘surprise’ the
prosecution with new evidence
in the middle of the trial
Limitations
Damages the presumption of
innocence and limits the right to
silence
Defendants who are in a vulnerable
state, confused, stressed, or have poor
English, will not have the protection of
the right to silence when questioned
Limits the advice lawyers can give
their clients. Lawyers may be reluctant
to attend police stations when an
accused is questioned by police
Caselaw:
The High Court in
Petty and Maiden v the Queen
[1991] HCA 34
“to direct the jury that it was
open to them to draw an adverse
inference about its genuineness
from the fact that the accused
had not previously raised it
would be to convert the right to
remain silent into a source of
entrapment” and that “such an
erosion of the fundamental right
should not be permitted”
Pre-trial disclosure of defence cases
may increase costs for the defence
www.ruleoflaw.org.au
RoLIA
Glossary
Consort/Associate
To be in the company of a person or to communicate
with them by any means, including by phone, email,
or any other form of electronic communication.
CCOCA
An acronym for two acts of NSW Parliament:
The Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act
2009 (NSW) was struck down by the High Court
in Wainohu v NSW [2011], the Crimes (Criminal
Organisation Control) Act 2012 was in force at the
time of publication in May 2013.
Control order
An order made for an individual under CCOCA
2012. The conditions of the order prevent the
individual from seeing other ‘controlled members’,
recruiting new members to the organisation, and
engaging in certain types of employment.
Criminal Intelligence
Evidence gathered by police which is kept confidential
because its release may harm existing criminal
investigations, or endanger police informants.
Criminal Offence
A criminal offence is usually comprised of two
elements: actus reus, (the guilty act), and mens rea,
(the guilty mind). In the case of the CCOCA the
offence for breaking a control order only requires
that the ‘guilty act’ be proven in court.
Rule of Law
The principle that all are subject to the law, and
that power is used according to the law. The
presumption of innocence and open justice are
key values in ensuring the use of power remains
accountable and transparent.
Serious criminal activity
Receiving benefit from actions which constitute a
serious indictable offence, or committing a serious
violence offence.
Serious indictable offence
An offence charged by indictment with a penalty of
5 years or more imprisonment.
Serious violence offence
An offence punishable by 10 years or more
imprisonment which causes loss of life, serious
injury or risk, and serious damage to property or
safety of any person.
See s3 of CCOCA 2012 for the full definitions
Still have a question? Ask us on:
http://www.facebook.com/RoLAustralia
http://www.twitter.com/RoLAustralia
Legal Responses to Criminal Organisations in NSW
Declared Organisation
An organisation declared by a judge to be involved
in serious criminal activity under CCOCA 2012.
The members of a declared organisation may be the
subject of control orders.
10
Open justice
The principle that trials and court proceedings
should be open to the public and the media so justice
can be seen to be done.
Presumption of Innocence
The principle that people are treated as innocent
until proven guilty by a court. This means a person
must be referred to as ‘the accused’ unless they have
been found guilty of a crime.
www.ruleoflaw.org.au
RoLIA
Cases, Legislation & Further Reading
Legislation
Consorting
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Control Orders Legislation
Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009 referred to as CCOCA 2009
Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012 referred to as CCOCA 2012
Other Laws Reformed to Target Criminal Organisations
Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases
R v Foster [2012] Local Court of NSW
Wainohu v NSW [2011] HCA 24
Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 7
Suggested Reading
The Hon Kevin Lindgren AM QC, ‘The Rule of Law: Its State of Health in Australia’ http://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Lindgren-Rule-of-Law-Its-State-ofHealth-in-Australia-2012.pdf
Malcolm Stewart, ‘Individual Rights or the Imperatives of the state – which should be paramount
under the rule of law?’, pp. 8 - 13
http://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Legal-Studies-Bikie-GangsIndividual-Rights-or-the-Imperatives-of-the-State.pdf
Victorian Parliamentary Research Service:
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/publications/research-papers/8419-criminal-organisationscontrol-bill-2012
Legal Responses to Criminal Organisations in NSW
Queensland Parliamentary Library and Research Service:
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/explore/ResearchPublications/
ResearchBriefs/2012/RBR201209.pdf
11
www.ruleoflaw.org.au
RoLIA
Legislation and Case law By Year
2008
• The Serious Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 (SA) came into force on the 15 May 2008.
2009
• The Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009 (NSW) came into force in March 2009.
• The South Australian Finks Motorcycle Club was declared under the Serious Organised Crime (Control) Act
2008 (SA) on 14 May 2009.
• The Serious Crime Control Act 2009 (NT) came into force on 11 November 2009.
• The Criminal Organisation Act 2009 (Qld) came into force on 3 December 2009.
2010
• The NSW Hells Angels Motorcycle Club was declared under the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control)
Act 2009 (NSW) in July 2010.
• The High Court strikes down provisions of the South Australian Act making it unusable but not invalid in
South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39
2011
• The High Court strikes down the NSW Act in Wainohu v NSW [2011] HCA 24 (23 June 2011).
2012
• The Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012 (NSW) addressed the issues raised in Wainohu v
NSW [2011] and came into force on 21 March 2012.
• Addressing aspects of South Australia v Totani [2010] and Wainohu v NSW [2011] the Serious and Organised
Crime (Control) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2012 (SA) came into force on 10 May 2012 and fixed the
provisions struck down by the High Court.
Legal Responses to Criminal Organisations in NSW
• The Gold Coast Chapter of the Finks Motorcycle club was declared under the Criminal Organisations Act
12
2009 (Qld) on 1 June 2012.
• The Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012 (Vic) came into force on 3 November 2012.
• The Criminal Organisations Control Act 2011 (WA) came into force on 29 November 2012.
2013
• The High Court upholds the QLD Act in Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd
[2013] HCA 7 (14 March 2013)
• The Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Amendment Act 2013 (NSW) came into force on 3 April 2013
and added provisions upheld in Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd [2013]
HCA 7 (14 March 2013).
www.ruleoflaw.org.au
RoLIA
Legislation and Case Law By State
NSW – Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act
• The Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009 (NSW) came into force in March 2009.
• The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club was declared under the Act in July 2010.
• The High Court strikes down the Act in Wainohu v NSW [2011] HCA 24 (23 June 2011).
• The Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012 (NSW) addressed the issues raised in Wainohu v
NSW [2011] and came into force on 21 March 2012.
• The Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Amendment Act 2013 (NSW) came into force on 3 April 2013
and added provisions to the Act upheld in Assistant Commisioner Michael James Condon v Pompano Pty
Ltd [2013] HCA 7 (14 March 2013).
South Australia – Serious Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008
• The Serious Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 (SA) came into force on the 15 May 2008.
• The Finks Motorcycle Club was declared under the Act on 14 May 2009.
• The High Court strikes down provisions of the Act making it unusable in South Australia v Totani [2010]
HCA 39.
• Addressing aspects of South Australia v Totani [2010] and Wainohu v NSW [2011] the Serious and
Organised Crime (Control) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2012 came into force on 10 May 2012 and fixed
the provisions struck down by the High Court.
Queensland – Criminal Organisation Act 2009
• The Criminal Organisation Act 2009 (Qld) came into force on 3 December 2009.
• The Finks Motorcycle club was declared under the Act on 1 June 2012.
• The High Court upholds the Act in Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd
[2013] HCA 7 (14 March 2013).
• The Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013, Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations
Legal Responses to Criminal Organisations in NSW
Disruption) Amendment Act 2013, Tattoo Parlours Act 2013 were all passed into law on the 17 October
13
2013.
Western Australia
The Criminal Organisations Control Act 2011 (WA) came into force on 29 November 2012.
Victoria
The Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012 (Vic) came into force on 3 November 2012.
Northern Territory
The Serious Crime Control Act 2009 came into force on 11 November 2009.
www.ruleoflaw.org.au
RoLIA
www.ruleoflaw.org.au
Still have a question?
Ask us on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/RoLAustralia
or on Twitter
http://www.twitter.com/RoLAustralia