Al Gillespie: Waikato University Law Professor says gang patch ban needs to be 'straightened out'

A legal expert has recommended that the Government re-write its poorly written gang patch law. 

It follows a judge's recent decision allowing a Mongrel Mob member to have his patch back. 

Waikato University Law Professor Al Gillespie says the judge interpreted the law fairly.

He says the law is ambiguous as it doesn't say the patch must be destroyed. 

Gillespie says the law will need to be straightened out back in parliament. 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now here's a story for you. A member of the
Mongrel Mob has asked a judge in court for his
confiscated gang patch back, and the judge has said yes
because of Teacunger. So the gang member argued that he
sees the mob as his family and that the patches
like a family crest, and the judge agreed with him.
Alexander Gillespie is a law professor at the University of
Waikatwin with us heyl Hey header. Has the judge interpreted

(00:23):
the law correctly?

Speaker 2 (00:25):
I think he's interpreted it fairly. The problem is that
it's an ambiguity in the law and it doesn't say
that the patch must be destroyed. If you want to
go back to this, take it back to Parliament, get
the law straight, move forward.

Speaker 1 (00:37):
How does te Hunger apply it? How does te Kunger
override the gang patch confiscation.

Speaker 2 (00:43):
I think it's part of a wider discussion in that
this law has some very good aspects to it in
terms of making people feel a lot safer, but there
are human rights aspects to it as well, in terms
of freedom of speech, freedom of identity, a clicktive way
of seeing yourself. I think tea kung is just one
word that's been applied to this which the media has
got hold of. To me, it's a difficult issue, but

(01:07):
if Parliament feels that there's a need to move forward,
they should. They should just take it back and make
there's no ambiguity. There was an ambiguity in this. If
you want to make sure that the patches are removed,
just get Parliament to say take them out and that
they cannot be returned.

Speaker 1 (01:20):
Okay, so is it not necessarily actually a tea kunger
thing but really a bill of rights thing.

Speaker 2 (01:27):
It's a poorly written law thing because it's not really
either a bill of rights thing or a tea hunger thing.
It's like, if Parliament wants us, I mean, you can
do that. You can say don't have patches in public,
which is a fear of logs other countries stard as well.
But if it comes to the removal and destruction of
the patch, then that's where you should say it must

(01:49):
happen or it shall happen.

Speaker 1 (01:50):
Right, And weren't they warned They were warned that they
need to write into law that they must destroy the
patch otherwise the patch could be given there.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
Yeah, yeah, that's right. You know, it's so to me.
It's something you know, if this is an issue, and
I don't think there's a risk here that there's going
to suddenly be a lot of pactores returned around the
country because it's a very specific case. But if there
is a concern, as with all issues where there is ambiguity,
you don't want the judges making law, but you want
Parliament to make law. Take it back, rewrite it, make

(02:19):
sure that ambiguity is gone, move forward.

Speaker 1 (02:21):
Good stuff, El, As always, I really love talking to you.
Thank you. El Gillespie, Professor of Law at the University
of Waikato. For more from Hither Duplessy Alan Drive, listen
live to news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio