Six of the organisation's eight recommendations were incorporated into the legislation
In a review conducted last week, the Justice Select Committee has accepted six of the eight recommendations submitted by the New Zealand Law Society | Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa in relation to the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill.
The bill aims to expand the categories of individuals subject to Firearms Prohibition Orders (FPOs) and to expand police powers to include the ability to conduct warrantless searches in the process of determining compliance with FPOs. The bill also presented a procedure to vary, amend, or revoke an FPO after five years.
The Law Society made its submission in April, with its Criminal Law Committee and Human Rights and Privacy Committee contributing. In the submission, the Law Society highlighted the lack of evidence in relation to whether the current FPO regime was working as it is meant to; the organisation that the regime had been implemented only recently, and there was insufficient data to assess its efficacy. As a result, the Law Society recommended reconsidering additional legislation at this time.
While the Select Committee ultimately recommended that the bill proceed, it incorporated the following Law Society recommendations:
- modifying the definition of "associate" to eliminate the term "a member of." Initially, a gang member’s “associate” could refer to the person’s parents, spouse, children, wider whānau, friends, counsellor or religious leader, work colleagues, and employers – even if these "associates" reported no gang involvement
- including a definition of "gang insignia" in an amended version of clause 6, referencing the definition in the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill
- limiting the offences under which an FPO may be issued in through modifying clause 7. Instead of applying the regime to all Crimes Act 1961 offences punishable by one or more years in jail, specific offences associated with gang offending are identified
- ensuring the same standard of proof (balance of probabilities) is followed when it comes to varying, modifying, and revoking an FPO, changing clause 8 to reflect this
- requiring police officers to present reasonable grounds to believe that a person is subject to an FPO (beyond mere suspicion) when it comes to invoking the need for a warrantless search
- restricting search powers to only premises under the control of the person subject to the FPO
The Law Society had also recommended limiting search powers to individuals believed to be violating the conditions of an FPO against them; the organisation said that the use of monitoring powers for reasons not linked to their foundational purpose was “unreasonable”.
The Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill advances to its second reading, where the House will review the Select Committee's report and decide on the proposed amendments.
