Police Association says careful approach needed on gang-patch ban in home

The Police Association says a gang-patch ban in the home for repeat offenders will be “confrontational” and “intrusive” – and police do not have the resources for routine searches.

The Ministry of Justice has also warned a residential ban would amount to a “disproportionate penalty” – viewing that it is not appropriate to apply a prohibition order used for firearms, to gang insignia.

Set to pass its Third Reading in the House later today, the Gangs Bill gives police new tools to crack down on gangs – including the power to disperse gatherings and ban patches in public.

But a clause added last month would see a person convicted of publicly displaying gang insignia three times in five years subject to a gang insignia prohibition order – making it illegal for a patch to be present where they live, even if it’s not theirs.

This week a second 11th-hour change was made, which would amend the definition of a “public place” to include gang insignia displayed inside a private vehicle which is visible to the public.

Labour’s Duncan Webb has called the gang-patch ban a “horrendous piece of legislation”, and an “extraordinary intrusion into someone’s personal life”.

But Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says the Government makes no apologies for introducing “tough legislation” to combat gangs.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says the Government makes no apologies for being tough on gangs. Photo / Mark Mitchell

The Law Society has also objected to the amendment, and to the fact it was added after the select committee process – where experts and the public can have their say.

Police Association president Chris Cahill said the gang insignia prohibition order is a “big step” but also a “two-edged sword”, as it may be challenging to enforce.

“That might work as a prevention measure, but police going into gang homes and associates’ homes looking for gang regalia will be confrontational,” he said.

“Search warrants like that are certainly intrusive in someone’s privacy so it could increase the tensions.”

He said what he is most interested to hear is the expectations of police officers, in enforcing the order – saying police aren’t resourced to conduct routine searches.

“To do a gang warrant, there’s quite a risk assessment that needs to be done and quite a lot of paperwork, and then you can’t just wander in with one or two officers, because of the risk it could present.

“These are going to be significant operations ... they won’t be routine by any stretch of the imagination.”

NZ Police Association president Chris Cahill in his Wellington office. Photo / Mark Mitchell.

Mark Mitchell says he does not accept that the laws could inflame tensions. He’s also previously pushed back on Cahill’s concerns about police resources in enforcing the gang-patch ban.

“The police have got the resources, they have got the ability to be able to deal with gangs,” he told Mike Hosking this month.

“I completely, totally back them and this legislation is going to give them the powers they need to continue to enforce and let the public know our police are controlling the streets and not the gangs.”

The Government has committed to delivering 500 extra police officers within its first two years in office, and this year announced a specialised National Gang Unit.

In June the Ministry briefed Goldsmith on escalating penalties for the ban on gang insignia in public – saying it had been instructed to work with Police on options.

Police wanted a ban that would “prevent a person from residing at a residence where gang insignia are present for more than two days (whether consecutive or not) in any 12-month period.”

PM Christopher Luxon and Minister of Police Mark Mitchell speaking at the Auckland central police station last week. Photo / Alex Burton

But the Ministry cautioned against this, saying this would be a “disproportionate penalty”, particularly when compared to a similar residential restriction in the Firearm Prohibition Order (FPO).

“Justice does not consider it appropriate for this to be carried over for the gang insignia regime, as the risk associated with a person subject to an FPO having ready access to firearms is not comparable to that posed by access to gang insignia.”

It also warned it would “impose significant restrictions on the ability of whānau with gang connections to continue associating with each other as a family”, and increase the risk of someone being held criminally liable for someone else’s insignia.

It noted that even with its proposed modification, “New Zealand will still have a more comprehensive insignia ban than any Australian jurisdiction”.

Paul Goldsmith said officials present ministers with all manner of potential risks and outcomes.

He said the legislation puts the interests of the general public first, to be able to go about their daily lives without fear or intimidation from gang members.

“It’s very easy to avoid, just don’t flout the law three times within five years. That is the final backstop to deal with recalcitrant people who are flouting the law.”

Labour’s Justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said it is extraordinary the minister has put something into the bill “at the last minute, against all advice”.

“The question is, what’s the harm of a gang patch in someone’s cupboard or top drawer – and the answer is absolutely none.”