1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:01,640
Speaker 1: Now here's a story for you. A member of the

2
00:00:01,720 --> 00:00:04,480
Speaker 1: Mongrel Mob has asked a judge in court for his

3
00:00:04,559 --> 00:00:07,800
Speaker 1: confiscated gang patch back, and the judge has said yes

4
00:00:08,360 --> 00:00:11,160
Speaker 1: because of Teacunger. So the gang member argued that he

5
00:00:11,200 --> 00:00:13,520
Speaker 1: sees the mob as his family and that the patches

6
00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:15,560
Speaker 1: like a family crest, and the judge agreed with him.

7
00:00:15,600 --> 00:00:19,239
Speaker 1: Alexander Gillespie is a law professor at the University of

8
00:00:19,280 --> 00:00:23,599
Speaker 1: Waikatwin with us heyl Hey header. Has the judge interpreted

9
00:00:23,600 --> 00:00:24,520
Speaker 1: the law correctly?

10
00:00:25,680 --> 00:00:28,800
Speaker 2: I think he's interpreted it fairly. The problem is that

11
00:00:28,840 --> 00:00:30,880
Speaker 2: it's an ambiguity in the law and it doesn't say

12
00:00:30,880 --> 00:00:33,600
Speaker 2: that the patch must be destroyed. If you want to

13
00:00:33,640 --> 00:00:35,639
Speaker 2: go back to this, take it back to Parliament, get

14
00:00:35,640 --> 00:00:37,040
Speaker 2: the law straight, move forward.

15
00:00:37,520 --> 00:00:39,880
Speaker 1: How does te Hunger apply it? How does te Kunger

16
00:00:39,960 --> 00:00:42,520
Speaker 1: override the gang patch confiscation.

17
00:00:43,640 --> 00:00:46,960
Speaker 2: I think it's part of a wider discussion in that

18
00:00:47,040 --> 00:00:50,199
Speaker 2: this law has some very good aspects to it in

19
00:00:50,280 --> 00:00:52,239
Speaker 2: terms of making people feel a lot safer, but there

20
00:00:52,240 --> 00:00:54,440
Speaker 2: are human rights aspects to it as well, in terms

21
00:00:54,440 --> 00:00:57,720
Speaker 2: of freedom of speech, freedom of identity, a clicktive way

22
00:00:57,720 --> 00:01:00,480
Speaker 2: of seeing yourself. I think tea kung is just one

23
00:01:00,520 --> 00:01:03,160
Speaker 2: word that's been applied to this which the media has

24
00:01:03,160 --> 00:01:07,000
Speaker 2: got hold of. To me, it's a difficult issue, but

25
00:01:07,200 --> 00:01:09,559
Speaker 2: if Parliament feels that there's a need to move forward,

26
00:01:09,680 --> 00:01:11,560
Speaker 2: they should. They should just take it back and make

27
00:01:11,600 --> 00:01:15,080
Speaker 2: there's no ambiguity. There was an ambiguity in this. If

28
00:01:15,080 --> 00:01:16,960
Speaker 2: you want to make sure that the patches are removed,

29
00:01:17,080 --> 00:01:19,440
Speaker 2: just get Parliament to say take them out and that

30
00:01:19,440 --> 00:01:20,480
Speaker 2: they cannot be returned.

31
00:01:20,600 --> 00:01:23,880
Speaker 1: Okay, so is it not necessarily actually a tea kunger

32
00:01:23,920 --> 00:01:25,560
Speaker 1: thing but really a bill of rights thing.

33
00:01:27,080 --> 00:01:33,080
Speaker 2: It's a poorly written law thing because it's not really

34
00:01:33,240 --> 00:01:35,320
Speaker 2: either a bill of rights thing or a tea hunger thing.

35
00:01:35,400 --> 00:01:38,119
Speaker 2: It's like, if Parliament wants us, I mean, you can

36
00:01:38,200 --> 00:01:41,480
Speaker 2: do that. You can say don't have patches in public,

37
00:01:41,520 --> 00:01:43,720
Speaker 2: which is a fear of logs other countries stard as well.

38
00:01:44,200 --> 00:01:46,760
Speaker 2: But if it comes to the removal and destruction of

39
00:01:46,760 --> 00:01:49,280
Speaker 2: the patch, then that's where you should say it must

40
00:01:49,320 --> 00:01:50,280
Speaker 2: happen or it shall happen.

41
00:01:50,320 --> 00:01:53,200
Speaker 1: Right, And weren't they warned They were warned that they

42
00:01:53,280 --> 00:01:55,680
Speaker 1: need to write into law that they must destroy the

43
00:01:55,720 --> 00:01:57,440
Speaker 1: patch otherwise the patch could be given there.

44
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:00,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that's right. You know, it's so to me.

45
00:02:00,760 --> 00:02:03,720
Speaker 2: It's something you know, if this is an issue, and

46
00:02:03,800 --> 00:02:05,560
Speaker 2: I don't think there's a risk here that there's going

47
00:02:05,600 --> 00:02:07,280
Speaker 2: to suddenly be a lot of pactores returned around the

48
00:02:07,280 --> 00:02:10,720
Speaker 2: country because it's a very specific case. But if there

49
00:02:10,760 --> 00:02:14,320
Speaker 2: is a concern, as with all issues where there is ambiguity,

50
00:02:14,480 --> 00:02:17,000
Speaker 2: you don't want the judges making law, but you want

51
00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:19,600
Speaker 2: Parliament to make law. Take it back, rewrite it, make

52
00:02:19,639 --> 00:02:21,400
Speaker 2: sure that ambiguity is gone, move forward.

53
00:02:21,600 --> 00:02:23,720
Speaker 1: Good stuff, El, As always, I really love talking to you.

54
00:02:23,760 --> 00:02:25,920
Speaker 1: Thank you. El Gillespie, Professor of Law at the University

55
00:02:25,960 --> 00:02:29,760
Speaker 1: of Waikato. For more from Hither Duplessy Alan Drive, listen

56
00:02:29,840 --> 00:02:32,880
Speaker 1: live to news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays,

57
00:02:32,960 --> 00:02:35,120
Speaker 1: or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio