Harley fighting the law
Consorting rules tested
CONTROVERSIAL anti-consorting laws could be aired before the country’s top court after a Gold Coaster from a notorious gangland family lodged a request for special leave to appeal.
Alleged bikie Harley Barbaro – the brother of slain Sydney underworld boss Pasquale Barbaro – and his legal team Moloney MacCallum Abdelshahied Lawyers have asked the High Court to hear the appeal to help “clarify” how anticonsorting warnings are given in Queensland.
Barbaro is arguing the legislation provides that warning notices should be issued for each person someone is prohibited from contacting, the court documents say.
A recent Queensland Court of Appeal majority decision ruled a consorting warning notice could be issued with multiple prohibited persons on the one notice.
The controversial consorting laws restrict alleged bikies from having contact with people with a criminal history.
In March last year Barbaro was the first person to plead not guilty to consorting.
Magistrate Kerry Magee acquitted him and said the warning notice issued to Barbaro was invalid because it included multiple registered offenders he could not contact.
She ruled warning notices should have been given to Barbaro for each offender.
Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath in December last year successfully appealed that decision and asked for clarification whether a consorting notice would be valid if it listed multiple offenders.
The Court of Appeal ruled that police were able to issue consorting warning notices which contained multiple names to alleged bikies.
Barbaro now wants to take that decision to the High Court despite the ruling having no effect on his acquittal.
Before the High Court hears an appeal, the applicant must seek “special leave” to have the case heard. Court documents lodged on behalf of Barbaro argue the law has the potential to affect other states with similar legislation.
“The scope of potential operation of such laws is often broad … with even police at times being uncertain to the limitations of the power regularly exercised under such provisions,” the documents said.
The documents assert the court should “not permit a near-enough-is-good-enough approach to interpretation” when it came to the laws.
Lawyers for Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath have argued that the Queensland Court of Appeal decision is clear and “does not involve a question of law of general public importance which would support a grant of special leave”.