Mana Brown was convicted for displaying gang insignia last year after his hat was spotted by CCTV cameras in the Hutt Valley. Photo: Supplied
The High Court in Wellington has heard that a man's conviction for wearing gang insignia is an infringement on his human rights.
Mana Brown, 19, was prosecuted last year under the Gangs Act 2024 after being spotted on CCTV cameras in the Hutt Valley wearing a cap that included the word 'Nomad'.
Counsel for Brown, Chris Nicholls, today told the court he did not dispute conviction but was seeking a declaration that the prohibition of gang insignia was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act and the government's international commitments to uphold human rights.
Nicholls said Brown was the third generation of a family deeply tied to the gang.
Reading from Brown's submission, Nicholls said the law had the effect of convicting Brown for expressing his identity.
"I was raised to be a part of the gang and I joined the gang at a young age. I'm proud of who I am. I feel I've just been convicted because of who I am," Brown wrote.
Nicholls said Brown's prosecution had little to do with the Gangs Act's stated objective of "reducing the ability of gangs to operate and cause fear, intimidation and disruption to the public".
He said Brown's actions at the time involved no criminality and the law went too far in cutting across Brown's right to freedom of expression.
Photo: Supplied
"A teenager going to the shops to get a feed - wearing a cap with the word Nomad - is not in anyway connected with gang intimidation.
"[The cap] had a number of words on it referring to his uncle and the word 'Nomad'. It barely scraped over into criminal conduct. People know unfairness when they see it and smell it. In a nutshell, the law goes too far," Nicholls said.
Nicholls told the court that the over representation of Māori in gangs, prisons and state care meant it was up to the court to make an "unambiguous declaration" that the law's infringement on human rights could not be justified.
"If it was other people that were being picked on the New Zealand public would want to know but it's 'just gang members', 'the other' and it's alright to do what you want to 'the other'," Nicholls said.
A High Court declaration of the Gangs Act's inconsistency with human rights would necessitate a report from the minister's responsible for the law and a response as to whether the government would enact any changes to the law as a result.
Crown Lawyer Austin Powell told the court it was not the High Court's place to seek a remedy with respect to Brown's personal case.
He said any inconsistency with the Bill of Rights was acknowledged in parliamentary debate as the law was passed and there was little purpose in the High Court making an additional declaration repeating that.
"When Parliament passed this law in December it was aware of the inconsistency," Powell said.
Assistant Crown Counsel, Lauryn Sinclair said the complaints about the law could be made to the United Nation's Human Rights Committee and it was not practical for the High Court to make declarations of inconsistency over each instance of the law's use.
Justice Cheryl Gwyn reserved her decision.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
