From today, police can enforce new gang legislation, including a ban on insignia being displayed in public. Here’s what you need to know.

Why are we talking about this again? I thought it came in ages ago.

The Gangs Act 2024 and Sentencing Amendment Act 2024 did indeed become law a couple of months ago but November 21, ie today, is when both come into force – thus ending the “free ride” for gangs, according to the justice and police ministers yesterday. In fact, the free ride ended precisely when the clock struck midnight, said the pair.

Did burly gang members atop Harleys find they were suddenly straddling pumpkins instead?

No, but police got new powers “to disrupt and directly target gang activity”.

How so? This is the gang patch ban, right?

Yep – gang insignia is now prohibited from being displayed in public. But police can also issue dispersal notices (meaning if three or more gang members are “believed to be unreasonably disrupting the activities of the public”, police can order them not to hang out in public for seven days) and courts can issue non-consorting orders (ordering “specified gang offenders” who have been convicted of a serious offence not to hang out or communicate with each other for three years). Under the Sentencing Amendment Act 2024, meanwhile, gang membership becomes an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Let’s go back to gang insignia. What even is it?

As per the act, “a sign, symbol or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of, or an affiliation with, a gang”, including “any item or thing to which a sign, symbol, or representation is attached/affixed eg clothing or a vehicle”.

Do tattoos count?

No, and nor does coloured clothing. You won’t be arrested for wearing a red hoodie.

What about a T-shirt featuring the official logo of my pub quiz team/Scrabble club/knitting faction that looks a bit like a gang patch?

Unless your pub quiz team/Scrabble club/knitting faction features on the list of 35 gangs in Schedule 2 of the Gangs Act 2024, or the act is amended on recommendation of the police minister to include it, you should be safe.

Phew. So the patches of those 35 gangs listed in the act can no longer be displayed in public places?

Correct – not in any place that is open to or being used by the public, which, according to the act, includes any vehicle, craft or vessel in a public place, ie a motor vehicle, train, ferry or aircraft.

Wait, so someone driving in a private car can’t wear a gang patch?

They can if it is not displayed (for example, covered by other clothing or out of sight of the public). As per the act, “displaying” gang insignia means more than simply making the gang insignia visible in public – the person must both make the gang insignia visible and intend that the gang insignia be shown to others in that public place.

What if you’ve pulled up next to someone at the lights, your window is down, their window is down, and you peer over and notice a jacket sitting on the back seat with a gang patch on it?

Keep driving, that’s not illegal. If they were waving said jacket out the window at you, it might be another story. (But please, still keep driving.)

Righto. So what are the penalties for breaching the gang insignia ban? 

Up to six months in jail or a fine of $5,000.

Any weird exceptions I should know about?

The parliamentary precincts are exempted from the insignia ban, a change made on the recommendation of the select committee after the clerk of the house pointed out that the speaker was supposed to be in charge of what goes down around those parts. “The speaker will retain the authority to issue rules consistent with the conduct prohibited by the offences in the bill,” according to the report of the Justice Committee.

The Spinoff inquired if such a rule existed and a parliament spokesperson confirmed it did. “The speaker has set, as a condition of entry to the precinct, that no gang insignia be displayed. Notice of this requirement is displayed at entry points to parliament grounds and on the parliament website. The notices read, ‘Gang insignias are not allowed within the parliamentary grounds or buildings’.”

So there you have it: gang patches are “not allowed” in parliament grounds, but not illegal, per se.

Anything else?

If the display of gang insignia is for “a genuine artistic or educational purpose”, or used in news reporting, documentaries, law enforcement, training for government agencies, or already on a headstone or grave marker before the law kicked in, it’s not illegal. Also, the internet doesn’t count as a public place. 

OK, got it. So just to be clear, wearing gang patches in the privacy of one’s own home is all good?

Yep – unless you’re subject to a prohibition order.

Eh?

A late amendment to the law added a three strikes element: three convictions for displaying gang insignia within five years triggers a prohibition order: gang insignia can’t be possessed, controlled or even present at that person’s usual place of residence for five years, and breaching that order could result in a year in prison.

Was this amendment controversial? 

Indeed. It was made at the 11th hour, after the select committee process had ended, so there was no public consultation, and it went against the advice of Ministry of Justice officials. Labour’s justice spokesperson Duncan Webb called the change “true madness”, and the New Zealand Law Society wrote to the justice minister about its concerns, calling the amendment “an incursion into private life that is not justified on the basis of the evidence available, and raises Bill of Rights and rule of law concerns”.

I see. Any other concerns with other aspects of the law?

Oh yes. It’s likely to breach the Bill of Rights Act for a number of reasons, including its disproportionate impact on Māori. Plus, according to justice ministry officials, there is no evidence any of its provisions would “reduce long-term offending behaviours by gangs, or eliminate gangs altogether”, and it could in fact risk making the gang problem worse.

Hmm. How have police prepared to enforce the new rules? 

“Gang disruption units” have been set up and over the past few months, police have been meeting with gangs and community groups to communicate their expectations.

How has that gone down?

“It’s not black and white in terms of what we’ve been hearing out there but we have had a really good period of engagement and so we’re cautiously optimistic,” assistant commissioner Paul Basham told RNZ. 

Meanwhile, various gang members have told media they’ll continue to wear their patches, including one who said he was planning to call the cops on himself and not resist arrest, telling The Post he was confident he’d be cleared by the Supreme Court. Another told the Herald that “several gangs” were “looking at a stand-off at parliament on Thursday”. (While gang insignia is “not allowed” at parliament, remember, it’s not illegal.)

Hmm. If they’re not planning to openly flout it, won’t gangs just find ways to get around the ban?

Probably, because “a sign, symbol or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of, or an affiliation with, a gang” is open to interpretation. The 35 gangs listed in the Gangs Act might use substitutes, it’s been suggested – the Killer Beez already went through a period of wearing plain white vests to denote membership. When Whanganui banned gang patches in 2009, one of the first people to be charged was a Mongrel Mob member for wearing a beanie with a bulldog on it. The charge was eventually dropped after he argued the bulldog was actually the logo of Georgia University in the US.

What do police think about all this?

A Kāpiti Mana police officer told the Police Association magazine that he and his colleagues were concerned about being outnumbered by young Mongrel Mob members “who are probably going to be willing to fight for their patch”. 

Police Association president Chris Cahill confirmed there was a lot of apprehension. “I can’t think of another law where I’ve sat back and thought, ‘How is this really going to unfold and work in practice?’, he told The Post. “You’re targeting a group who aren’t known to obey the law, and how they react is going to be a big part of what unfolds and then how police have to respond.” He said he anticipated that many gang members would “push the boundaries”, which would lead to “some pretty significant confrontations with police”.

What’s going to happen in the courts?

It remains to be seen. But as law professor Andrew Geddis wrote – before the wording of the legislation had been released, it should be noted – this is where the ban might stumble, “particularly in the face of what may be some sceptical, rights-focused interpretation”. And as illustrated by the case of the gang member mentioned earlier, who said he was going to intentionally get arrested, gangs themselves are likely to be aware of this.