Search

Background: In 2013 the Queensland Government introduced criminal association and mandatory sentencing laws for members of outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMCGs). Forms of "criminal association" or "anti-bikie" laws have been introduced in several Australian jurisdictions, and recent High Court decisions upholding their constitutionality will ensure that they remain part of our justice landscape. Generally, the aims of these laws are to declare a specific organisation as "criminal" and impose various legal orders and offences that thwart the consorting of members and address organised crime, such as unexplained wealth regimes. There have been significant criticisms of these styles of association laws both here and internationally. The aim of this research is to show the extent of involvement of OMCGs in the drug trade and associated organised crime activity, and whether anti-association laws are an effective response to this type of organised criminal activity.Methods: This paper relied on six years of data outlining the criminal activity of OMCGs from the Queensland Police Service (QPS) obtained under the legislative framework of The Queensland Right to Information Act (RTI) 2009. Information obtained from the Queensland Commission into Organised Crime (2015) and Queensland Taskforce into organised crime legislation (2015) was also used.Results: The data suggest that the role of OMCGs in the drug market has been overstated and is not as dominant as has been portrayed by government agencies and the popular media. Generally, OMCGs account for less than one percent of organised crime type activity. This is also true for drug type offences where OMCGs are responsible for less than one percent of offences. The findings show that the Queensland example has highlighted the ineffectiveness of the criminal association laws and the mandatory sentencing provisions in that they have had little impact on drug market activity and little success in the courts.Conclusion: The analysis presented here is twofold: an examination of the legal ramifications and an evaluation of the investigative utility of such laws from a policy evaluation standpoint. In both cases, there is little evidence to suggest that these laws are an effective or appropriate response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International drug law enforcement agencies have identified an apparent rise in high level drug traffickers choosing to deal in multiple different drugs. It is hypothesised that this may be a "deliberate modus operandi" and that the formation of "portfolios of trades" may make such traffickers more profitable, harmful and resilient to changes in drug supply and policing. In this paper we provide the first exploration of the extent, nature and harms of poly-drug trafficking at Australian borders.Methods: Two different methods were used. First, we used Australian Federal Police (AFP) data on all commercial level seizures at the Australian border from 1999 to 2012 to identify the proportion of seizures that were poly-drug and trends over time. Second, we used unit-record data on a sub-set of 20 drug trafficking cases and linked-cases (defined as the original drug trafficking case and all other criminal cases that were connected via common offenders and/or suspects) to compare the profiles of poly-drug and mono-drug traffickers, including: the total weight and type of drug seized, the value of assets seized, and the level of involvement in other crime (such as money laundering and corruption).Results: Between 5% and 35% of commercial importations at the Australian border involved poly-drug trafficking. Poly-drug trafficking occurred in almost every year of analysis (1999-2012), but it increased only slightly over time. Compared to mono-drug traffickers poly-drug traffickers were characterised by: larger quantities of drugs seized, larger networks, longer criminal histories and more involvement in other types of serious crime.Conclusion: Some fears about poly-drug traffickers may have been overstated particularly about the inherent escalation of this form of trafficking. Nevertheless, this suggests poly-drug traffickers are likely to pose added risks to governments and law enforcement than mono-drug traffickers. They may necessitate different types of policy responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]