Chipping away at National's gang-patch ban II

The regime passed its racist gang-patch ban a year ago, with great fanfare. and since then, the police have used it with great enthusiasm, ignoring domestic violence and retail crime in favour of attacking funerals and kicking in doors to seize banned clothing, assert their dominance, and humiliate gang-members. Except the humiliation may be on them: a district court judge has ordered a seized patch to be returned (depaywalled):

Ultimately, the judge opted to give the vest back.

“Mr Leef made it very clear to the court when he pleaded guilty that he placed such value in his patch that there is no way that it would leave his house again.”

The judge noted the Gangs Act had only recently come into force on November 21. Leef would have been aware of it, but was unlikely aware that it could result in him permanently losing his patch.

There was no information in the summary of facts to suggest any member of the public was caused fear, intimidation or disruption.

“Mr Leef clearly places considerable personal value in his patch. It signifies, for him, a sense of belonging and family that he does not find in the community.

“While Mr Leef has previous convictions, he has not committed a serious offence since the 1990s. His offending more recently has been irregular and at the minor end of the scale.”

Which makes sense. The government told us that the purpose of the gang-patch ban was to prevent intimidation in public places. That's not inconsistent with returning forfeited items where there was no intimidation in the offence and where such intimidation seems unlikely in future. And in fact a rights-consistent interpretation of the law seems to demand it.

(The police were also forced to return two other items which they had seized, but not laid charges over - because only items charged for are forfeited. Which invites the question of how often this has happened, and how many times they have used one charge to cover the theft of multiple items...)

I expect the police and government to go apeshit about this, but its the law they passed, and they have to live with it. If they don't like it, they can of course amend it to require destruction without trial, on the say-so of a police officer, but I think the courts would take a very dim view of that too. You'd think the ACT Party might have a few things to say about it as well, being supposedly the party of property rights and the rule of law...

(There's another similar case from Palmerston North, with the added spice of excessive force, but I haven't seen any news on how that one has turned out yet).