Police powers and bikers in the NT – “Trust me I’m a Policeman”

I’ve recently written here about the apparent reign of criminal terror that the bakers dozen of Hells Angels MC members and the sole representative of the Finks MC that live in the Northern Territory are, if you are foolish enough to believe the spin coming from NT Police and politicians, wreaking across the length and breadth of the NT.

And, according to the Northern Territory Police Commissioner, Paul White they represent a real threat to that esteemed citizen of the NT, Laura Norder. As he told the ABC earlier this week:

…it is important that police in the Territory work with all Australian police to stamp out the gangs, as members are very closely linked to their interstate counterparts.

“They are a national network,” he said.

“They are involved in murder, shootings, violence, drug supply, extortion. You name it, they do it.

“And they’re just out and out criminals and the NT Police is really keen to keep on top of them.”

White will host a meeting of Australian and south-west Pacific Police Commissioners in Darwin this week.

As the spinners at the NT Police media unit describe it:

Commissioners from Australasia and the South West Pacific Region are making their way to the Top End for the Annual Police Commissioners Conference 2009. The Northern Territory Police are the hosts of this years Commissioners Conference entitled ‘Leading and Managing Change in Policing – Serious and Organised Crime.’

Topics including policing outlaw motorcycle gangs, alcohol issues, unsolved homicide and criminal property confiscation, will be discussed at this years conference.

My real concern here is that, perhaps more than anyone else in the NT, White should at least have a minimal appreciation of the distinction between hyperbole and fact – saying that all members of the HAMC and the sole Fink in the NT are involved in a panopoly of crimes from murder down seems to me to be well over the top in terms of hype and spin and more than likely factually wrong.

One novel approach that the NT Police has taken to ‘keeping on top of’ the members of the Hells Angels MC and their predeccessors in the NT, the Blonks MC, and apparently with the assistance of the Australian Crime Commission, is to hit the thirteen members of so-called Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs (OMCGs) living in the NT in their hip pockets and to seize their land title.

Before the Hells Angels came to the NT, the NT’s only OMCG was a group known as the Blonks MC (Bike Lovers Only Need Kick Starts).

The Blonks MC kicked off in the early 1980’s based in Darwin and were the subject of a soft takeover by the Hells Angels MC in 1993 after a number of Blonks MC members became affiliate members of the Adelaide chapter of the HAMC.

The Blonks MC had a large property at Darwin River and the Blonks MC clubhouse at Howard Springs became Hells Angels property – at least in practice. But it appears that they failed to effect a legal tranfer of ownership of the larger block of land.

The Blonks were incorporated in 1986 under the NT Associations Act, section 65 of which allows the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs to dissolve an Association which ‘is not carrying out its objects or is not in operation‘. Section 68 of the Associations Act provides that, subsequent to that dissolution, the property of a dissolved association vests in the Commissioner, who may then sell it.

I’m unclear what has happened to the Blonks MC land at Darwin River but on 12 July 2006 the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs issued a Notice that the Blonks was dissolved.

Following that Notice the Public Officer of the Blonks MC, Paul Anthony Johnson, took action in the NT Court of Summary Jurisdiction challenging a related matter of a declaration by the NT Police Commissioner under section 40 of the Associations Act that he was a person ‘unfit to be an officer of an incorporated association’.

Johnson’s application was heard by Magistrate David Loadman, who, on my reading between the lines of his judicial language, was scathing of the actions of the NT Police and their apparent misuse of the powers in the Associations Act, describing the power to declare a persons ineligibility to be a Public Officer by the processes available as ‘draconian’ and that:

Extraordinarily the police whose certificate is the very basis for the decision the subject of the appeal cannot as is evident be compelled to even tell the court of the basis on which the certificate was given. Mr Anderson for the Respondents made the alarming submission that this statutory exemption extended to every officer in the Northern Territory Police Force which would seem to make a complete mockery of the process and severely offend the principles of natural justice or procedural fairness as it is also known.

Johnson gave evidence in which he stated that, contrary to the assertion that he was a person unfit to be a Public Officer he had never been convicted of a criminal offence and that he had been a member of the Blonks MC and later of the Hells Angels MC, a point that received a lot of attention during his cross-examination, the reason for such extensive cross-examination Magistrate Loadman found ‘was obscure’.

Character witnesses gave evidence that Johnson was a hard working family man that enjoyed riding motorcycles.

Magistrate Loadman then considered the evidence of the NT Police in support of the declaration that Johnson was an unfit to be a Public Officer. That evidence came in the form of an affidavit and sworn testimony from Detective Sergeant Jamie Andrew Chalker, then a 12-year veteran of the NT Police.

Magistrate Loadman’s construction is a bit clumsy but nonetheless he is scathing of Chalker’s evidence and the NT Police case, which amounted to nothing more than wild assertions masquerading as facts that Johnson was unfit to be the Blonks MC Public Officer. It is worth quoting at length:

The significant observation by the Court which will be made repeatedly is that there is no evidence provided by him to support that statement and the proposition which was the subject of some comment by the Court after he had finished his evidence that the second Respondent was firstly not compellable or to give evidence, but could come along make that sort of statement not supported by any evidence, is regarded by the Court as extraordinary.
He describes an extensive knowledge or alleges an extensive knowledge derived from intelligence reports and other sources, but again doesn’t in fact disclose that knowledge which indeed he consistently refused or declined to do.
He alleges that as an investigator he is possessed of a thorough understanding of HAMC; the roles and responsibilities of its members, but again was not prepared to disclose the basis upon which he was able to make the statements that he did. Relevantly he said that since 1993 Blonks Motorcycle Club Inc was used solely for the convenience and the advantage of the Darwin Chapter of HAMC. The statement is made without any supporting evidence being called and it seems that the Court, at least in his perception, is supposed to accept whatever he says as having been proven by admissible evidence.

Much of his evidence was related to the undisputed fact that the Appellant was a full member of HAMC and nothing significant turns on that. Annexure JAC4 to Chalker’s affidavit is a list of members of “Blonks Motorcycle Club Inc” provided by the first Respondent. The Appellant was not sure whether he was a member of that organisation, but the fact that he is in fact a member is neither in dispute or in anyway remarkable. He never denied he was such a member.

He then asserts criminal records and activities pertaining to James Scott Parnell Knight and Ian Grant Hogan both members of HAMC. Quite why that should prove the Appellant is an unfit person for the job or not a fit and proper person for the job of public officer is at least remote in this Court’s perception. He gave oral evidence that although the Appellant denied being involved in the cultivation of cannabis, possession of stolen property and possession of illegal firearms (pistols) he maintained his involvement, but gave the same reasons for the absence of any evidence namely he was unable or unwilling to reveal the basis for his contrary view and the Court remarks in a like manner as it has in respect of concomitant assertions by him.

…

As Mr Powell [for Johnson] correctly says absolutely no procedural fairness has been observed. The allegations are made without any supporting evidence.

Magistrate Loadman then proceeds to reject outright a number of submissions made to him by Counsel for the NT Police. In respect of the last of these he notes that:

It is extraordinary in this Court’s finding to hear a submission from Counsel to the affect that when a witness claims privilege against self incrimination it ought alone to suffice to enable the Court to find he is not a fit and proper person to hold public office. The Court emphatically rejects that proposition and finds it quite alarming.

He then proceeds to put the NT police case, based upon no facts, in an historical context:

It is also significant that section 114(6) of the [Associations] Act specifically cites “the Court may make its decision only on the evidence given by a party to the appeal” what could be more clear. Without evidence the Court cannot make a decision and is certainly not prepared to make the decision on the basis of statements by police officers, this smacking of that hoary old chestnut, “trust me I’m a lawyer” in this case “trust me I’m a policeman”. We do not any longer have courts functioning in the manner of the Star Chamber. That reference is a reference to the Court of Star Chamber which by the time of the reign of Charles I of England had become synonymous with misuse and abuse of power by the King and his circle.

Unsurprisingly, Magistrate Loadman granted Johnson’s appeal against the declaration that he was a person unfit to be the Blonks MC Public Officer.

Round Two in the fight by the Blonks MC against the NT Police was fought in the NT Supreme Court, where Johnson made application to overturn the Notice of June 2006 to dissolve the Blonks MC. At stake here was the valuable property of the Blonks at Darwin River.

Before Justice Steve Southwood Johnson enjoyed none of the fortune he received in the Magistrates Court and in his decision in Johnson v Commissioner of Consumer Affairs [2009] NTSC 4 Southwood J found that the Blonks MC had in fact not been functioning since about mid-2006 and that Johnson’s application be dismissed.

In effect what this meant was that the valuable property at Darwin River would vest in the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, i.e. the NT Government.

The Hells Angels MC and their associates in the NT had been the subject of considerable attention by both the NT Police and the ACC through the latter agency’s OMCG Task Force. In late 2004 and early 2005 the ACC issued a number of summons to NT Hells Angels MC members requiring that they appear before an ACC Examiner in Darwin and compelling them to give evidence in relation to their knowledge of the activities and finances of a person named Gary William Watt and the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club from 1995 and those of the Blonks Motorcycle Club Inc and the Blonks Trust from 1985.

All of the Hells Angels refused, apparently on legal advice, to answer the ACC’s questions despite being ordered to do so. They were all subsequently arrested and charged and all eventually entered guilty pleas (see R v Dunkerton, Wills and Eaton, R v Johns and R v Knight, Johnson and Murphy)

What is interesting in these matters is that in relation to the assumptions, current at the time that the cases being heard and also, per Commissioner White’s contemporary comments above, still alive in the minds of the NT Police to this day, that all members of the Hells Angels MC are inherently criminal.

Here it is clear that the Court had direct evidence relating to the character of each of those entering guilty pleas and that evidence shows that notwithstanding a few with serious criminal histories, most of the members of the Hells Angels MC charged by the ACC had no, or relatively minor, criminal histories.

Wills had several old and minor convictions and had been conviction-free since 1996. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to be released after two months on good behaviour and thence to be bound to a $5,000 good behaviour bond for two years.

Eaton similarly only had a few old and minor relevant convictions but was considered more culpable than Wills and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to be released after three months on good behaviour and thence to be bound to a $5,000 good behaviour bond for two years.

Like Wills and Eaton, Dunkerton only had a few old and minor relevant convictions, though had received a suspended sentence for assault and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to be released after three months on good behaviour and thence to be bound to a $5,000 good behaviour bond for two years.

In the separate proceedings of Knight, Johnson and Murphy, Johnson had no relevant or recent criminal convictions and was released on a bond of $5,000 to be of good behaviour for two years. Parnell was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment to be suspended after two months and thence to be bound to a $5,000 good behaviour bond for two years. Murphy, like Johnson, had no relevant or recent criminal convictions and was released on a bond of $5,000 to be of good behaviour for two years.Johnson had no relevant or recent criminal convictions and was released on a bond of $5,000 to be of good behaviour for two years.

Johns appeared in separate proceedings to the others before Justice Angel, most likely, as the judge noted, because he gave evidence that he had left the Hells Angels because he had ‘mentally outgrown the members of that club’. Johns was sentenced to ten months imprisonment but to be suspended on the rising of the court. Johns was also bound to a $5,000 good behaviour bond for two years.

What I think these cases show is that, despite wielding their best investigative and propaganda efforts and their considerable legal and administrative resources the NT Police and agencies like the ACC have, overall, been frustrated in their attempts to break the Hells Angels in the NT.

They have had several wins – several have Hells Angels received jail sentences, even if only for relatively brief terms, and the NT Government, through a flanking approach to the property rights and interests of the Blonks MC and Hells Angels MC, has been able to effectively seize a valuable piece of property – but the Hells Angels are still free to ride the roads of the NT – albeit, it seems, with an almost permanent NT Police surveillance effort.

What an absolute waste of good public money.