THE PRESS FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1988. Dealing with gangs

Press, 13 May 1988, Page 16

THE PRESS FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1988. Dealing with gangs

The Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, and the Minister of Police, Mr Tapsell, have outlined measures the Government has in mind to deal with offensive public behaviour from gangs. If the measures become law they could help reduce the intolerable sense of threat that gangs sometimes impose on other people, but only if the police and the courts are prepared to enforce the proposed laws. That may not always be easy, and may itself lead to the violence that the changes are intended to prevent. A new law on unlawful assembly, for instance, would give the police power to disperse a group of three or more people when what the Minister of Justice calls “a reasonable person” would be intimidated by their presence. That is stronger than the present offence of unlawful assembly where a common purpose, and a threat of violent offending, have to be demonstrated before the police can act. For the police who actually have to disperse a gathering of gang members, on an inter-island ferry or outside a hotel, the difference is small. The police will be able to act more quickly; they may still become involved in a major confrontation.

The test will come in the application of the law. Little good would be served if a tougher definition of unlawful assembly was used in such matters as industrial disputes, or otherwise peaceful demonstrations, where the sentiment of the community may be by no means as clear as it is on the need to curb the gangs. Nor would it be much help if the courts became erratic in interpreting the law so that the police continued to face uncertainty about their powers. The drafting of the proposed law to serve its purpose, but to exclude its misuse, will be difficult; the application of the law will probably go wrong at times so that the right of association will seem to be damaged. The public mood is nevertheless strongly enough in favour of action to reduce the intimidating actions of gangs that the occasional mishap is deemed bearable. This is not a comfortable position for the law to take, yet it seems on balance, inescapable and at least worth a trial.

A second proposed change in the law would allow the courts to impose nonassociation orders as part of a sentence, and give the police power to enforce such orders. Used sensibly, and policed with vigour, such a law could reduce the association of gang members without the application of custodial sentences. But again it may require courage, as well as tact, if the police are to enforce

such orders in the face of defiance from groups of gang members. Both measures are no more than tactical responses. They give more effective means to deal with some provocative forms of gang behaviour. They will not, of themselves, do much to reduce the importance of gangs in New Zealand’s criminal community. As matters stand, something like 40 per cent of violent crime is gang associated. Gang membership throughout the country is said to be about 3500. On those figures, about one New Zealander in one thousand is a gang member, but that tiny group is responsible for nearly half the serious crime. Take out the gangs, and New Zealand might look like a reasonably law-abiding place. Many gang members are Maori or partMaori. One way to reduce the importance of gangs is to reduce their recruiting of new members, to offer other, more rewarding outlets and alignments for potential recruits. Many New Zealanders might argue that a great deal has been done, and a great deal of money spent already, on just such purposes without much effect. Even so, any promising new idea is surely worth a try.

Mr Tapsell has proposed that young Maori criminals be taken from prison and, as an alternative, be returned to their tribal area for a programme of “vigorous rehabilitation.” If the community accepts the concept of racially segregated penalties for similar offences, Mr Tapsell’s proposal might work, at least for some offenders. Again, enforcement would be a problem. Something close to being a small prison would need to be built at a Maori community to ensure offenders served their sentence under suitable control.

Otherwise, for a young Maori to be sent to a Maori community under sentence to stay there and work for a set period would amount to a kind of internal exile. Experience elsewhere, in the Soviet Union or parts of Africa, suggests that such punishments need a bureaucratic device to make them effective.

Generally, this has taken the form of a system of internal passports or passes, required by all the community and able to show whether a person is permitted to be inside — or outside — the area where he or she is found during checks by police. The Government has yet to discover whether the community would accept such a system as a means to destroy the menace that gangs have imposed from time to time on parts of the country.