{"id":2783,"date":"2011-09-21T11:47:44","date_gmt":"2011-09-21T01:47:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=2783"},"modified":"2011-09-21T11:47:44","modified_gmt":"2011-09-21T01:47:44","slug":"developments-nsw-bikie-legislation-excerpt-from-plr-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2011\/09\/21\/developments-nsw-bikie-legislation-excerpt-from-plr-september-2011\/","title":{"rendered":"Developments: NSW bikie legislation (Excerpt from PLR, September 2011)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In another \u00e2\u20ac\u0153bikie\u00e2\u20ac\u009d case, the High Court has held the <em>Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009<\/em> (NSW) invalid in its entirety. The impugned provisions of the Act provided for an organisation to be classified a declared organisation by an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153eligible judge\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of the Supreme Court, subsequently allowing its members to be placed under orders restricting, among other things, their interactions with other members. A six-member majority of the court held that the provisions were invalid as they allowed for an organisation to be declared without an obligation on the judge who did so to give reasons or grounds for the declaration. It was held that as an application to make a declaration may be contested, and that contestation has no terms on which to found its \u00e2\u20ac\u0153collateral attack\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or seek judicial review, not having an obligation to provide reasons was repugnant to, or incompatible with, the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court. See <em>Wainohu v New South Wales<\/em> (2011) 85 ALJR 746; [2011] HCA 24.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In another \u00e2\u20ac\u0153bikie\u00e2\u20ac\u009d case, the High Court has held the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009 (NSW) invalid in its entirety. The impugned provisions of the Act provided for an organisation to be classified a declared organisation by an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153eligible judge\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of the Supreme Court, subsequently allowing its members to be placed under orders restricting, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[1123,668,1124,155,6],"class_list":["post-2783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-public-law-review","tag-bikie-legisation","tag-developments","tag-institutional-integrity","tag-judiciary","tag-plr"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2783","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2783\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}