Law | Australia - Assault On Right to Free Association & On Privacy

SOURCE http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/comanchero-bikies-insurance-invalidated-after-canberra-brothel-fire-20150903-gjec6y.html Comanchero bikie's insurance invalidated after Canberra brothel fire Date September 3, 2015 - 6:19PM 486 reading now Fidel Tukel, manager of a brothel in the north of Canberra. Photo: Facebook Life just got tougher for outlaw motorcycle gang members. They will now struggle to get insurance. A company that owned a brothel in Canberra which burned to the ground on New Year's Day 2012 has been refused a $770,000 insurance payout because it failed to disclose that its sole director was the sargent-at-arms in the Comancheros motorcycle gang. In a landmark ruling that will have implications for bikies and organised crime figures, the NSW Supreme Court has ruled that failure to disclose such links invalidates insurance - even insurance taken out over legitimate businesses. The suspicious fire at the Gentlemen's Club in Canberra in 2012 The suspicious fire at the Gentlemen's Club in Canberra in 2012 Photo: Marina Neil Mr Baris Tukel, was the sole director of Stealth Enterprises which owned the Gentleman's Club in Mitchell, a charmless industrial area in the north of Canberra. His brother, Fidel Tukel, well known in boxing circles, was the manager of the brothel. But it was the brothers' connections with the Comancheros which have proved fatal to their insurance claim, which they pursued through the NSW Supreme Court, after it was refused by their insurer Calliden. "What was in issue included whether a reasonable person in Stealth Enterprises' position could be expected to know that their involvement with the Comancheros was relevant to Calliden's decision to accept the risk of insuring the brothel," Justice Monika Schmidt said. The brothers filed affidavits but declined to give evidence in person. The insurer called evidence from a Mr Macken, an intelligence analyst at NSW Police, who said such outlaw motorcycle gangs have been linked to serious crimes such as homicide; drug manufacture, cultivation and distribution; organised property theft and fraud; extortion; and firearm related offences. He also described how outlaw motorcycle gangs distinguished themselves from social motorcycle gangs, including by the use of cloth patches known as "Colours" worn on the rear of vests, which display the name of the gang and the country or state of origin. Photographs in evidence showed Mr Fidel and Mr Baris Tukel wearing Comancheros patches. Stealth Enterprises' argued that the court could not accept the insurer's argument: namely that "if you belong to a bikie gang, you can't get any type of insurance" . It also argued that given Calliden was prepared to insure brothels, a reasonable person in the community wouldn't realise that membership of a bikie gang was a relevant matter to be disclosed to an insurer such as Calliden. Those arguments were rejected by the court. Justice Schmidt said she was satisfied that if the brothers had disclosed their bikie connections when they applied for insurance in 2010 or when it was renewed in 2011, they would have been refused insurance. SOURCE http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/comanchero-bikies-insurance-invalidated-after-canberra-brothel-fire-20150903-gjec6y.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT This decision struck me as utter bullsh*t.  Photos in evidence showed bikie patches being worn.  No!  What is this, the 1950s? Why would any reasonable person consider disclosing membership in a motorcycle club as 'relevant' to an insurer, or to anybody else? "Justice Schmidt said she was satisfied that if the brothers had disclosed their bikie connections ... they would have been refused insurance." How is that even relevant?  Who cares what insurers might have done? The insurers took their money, like they take everybody else's, and it's time to pay up. It sounds like one of those ridiculous Mickey Mouse US courts that always uphold the agenda of corrupt law enforcement, government, and corporations, no matter how ridiculous the decision. I consider this an abuse of human rights.  This is outrageous.  It's an assault on the freedom of association, as well as the right to privacy. Why should insurers - companies who are making bets that an event will not happen (and collecting large profits because of rare occurrence and loss) - be granted any special privileges or rights to know anything and be given the go-ahead to discriminate against any sector of the community that is collectively enriching these companies? What 'would have', 'could have', 'might have' happened is irrelevant. Why isn't a court of law dealing with what actually happened:  the insurer took money to insure & it's time to pay up. ꕤ