LINDSAY MITCHELL: Judge undermines govt intent
- Administrator
- Aug 28
- 2 min read
The National coalition government banned the wearing of gang patches in public places in November 2024.
The legislation states:
If a person pleads guilty to, or is convicted of, an offence against subsection (1), the gang insignia concerned—
(a) is forfeited to the Crown; and
(b) may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court, either at the time of the conviction for the offence or on a subsequent application, directs.
In what appears to be a first, District court judge Lance Rowe has decided to return a patch to its convicted wearer.
He came to the decision using the concept of tikanga or kinship. The court reporter detailing this decision says it "may yet be appealed by the police."
I don't want to argue either way for the ban on gang patches in public places. But yet again, we are seeing a court thwart the government's position.
Police Minister Mark Mitchell is emphatic: “Our message to the gangs is clear - the days of behaving like you are above the law are over.”
Are they?
About submissions from the gang member in question, the judge wrote they "could be recognisable in tikanga terms as consistent with expressions of mana and whanaungatanga."
As we know, these concepts can be quite elastic. Whatever they mean - or are purported to mean - in this case they put the rights of the offender first. In this case they have been used as devices to allow an offender to thumb his nose and avoid the consequences. His patch is very precious to him apparently but on at least two occasions (another caught on CCTV camera) he transgressed the legal ban and risked losing it. He thought he'd get away with it. And he has.
In this judge's application of the law, the very clear message the ban is meant to send, has been muddied and weakened.
The gang patch ban aside, there are two big issues here: the increasing admittance of Maori concepts in New Zealand's system of law, and secondly, their utilisation to counter government intent.
The message that sends is to expect more ambiguity and confusion, and less transparency and certainty for anyone involved in the justice system. And if you don't like it, don't expect your vote to make any difference.
Lindsay Mitchell blogs here
Here is an extract from my recent email to Prime Minister Luxon (copied to "Justice" Minister Goldsmith:
It is my belief that the current government faces powerful opposition from three distinct but equally influential groups:
The Bureaucracy,
The Fourth Estate (taxpayer-funded media),
The Judiciary, including the Waitangi Tribunal.
These entities are all taxpayer-funded, unelected, and yet hold immense power, often working in opposition to our current elected Government.
I asked the PM to DO something about this!
This may sound a bit harsh, but any judge who invokes maori mythology into the law or his own opinions as such needs to be removed from the bench.
It may take time but we would end up with a much better more balanced justice system.
I can see the outrage on this blog that this ruling has created but in the grand scale of things where does the rest/bulk of New Zealand sit? Unaware, disinterested, supportive or similarly outraged.
The law states:
"(b) may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court, either at the time of the conviction for the offence or on a subsequent application, directs."
No when we all read that it appears that we have differing opinions but I personally don't care what the judge does with the regalia and if the dickhead chooses to wear it in public again no doubt it will again be seized and this time the police may make an effort to avoid that particular…
The Police must appeal this maverick ruling.
Judge Rowe knows that his sworn duty is to interpret the statute by ascertaining “the intention of the legislature” - if only because our country’s constitution vests law-making powers in an elected Parliament and confines unelected judges to applying those laws - whether they personally like them or not.
This simple Act requires that gang patches worn in public must be forfeit to the Crown - which will then “destroy or otherwise dispose of them”. The words “otherwise dispose” are broad but are clearly associated with “destroy”..Even Blind Freddy well knows that the lawmakers did not intend this discretion to be used to reverse the forfeiture.
This was not a judicial act.…
Gang patches are tattooed onto the members' bodies after tgey 'graduate' from their status of being 'prospects'...so gang patch law is a nonsense. Visit any public pool and there they are with whanau, their patches on display.