Politics

Three Liberal Ministers Are Being Hauled In Front Of The Vic Supreme Court This Week

This kind of case has not been seen in Australia for 20-30 years.

by Chris Woods  15 June 2017
Liberal

Want more Junkee in your life? Sign up to our newsletter, and follow us on Instagram and Facebook so you always know where to find us.

In an incredibly rare case of politicians facing consequences for their wild rhetoric, three federal Liberal MPs will head to the Victorian Supreme Court on Friday to explain why they should not face contempt of court charges for attacking state judges over terrorism sentencing.

Health Minister Greg Hunt, Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar and Human Services Minister Alan Tudge will head to Melbourne tomorrow after they criticised Victorian judges for going soft on terrorists in comments to The Australian. Judicial registrar Ian Irving argues the statement were an attack on the independence of the judiciary.

“The attributed statements appeared to intend to bring the court into disrepute, to assert the judges have and will apply an ideologically based predisposition in deciding the case or cases and that the judges will not apply the law,” Irvin wrote in a letter to the ministers, sent via Attorney-General George Brandis.

“The attributed statements, on their face, also appear to be calculated to influence the court in its decision or decisions, and to interfere with the due administration of justice in this state.”

The move is extraordinary in that MPs bag judges all the goddamn time and barely ever face consequences. The Victorian Supreme Court has apparently bucked tradition here because they see Hunt, Sukkar and Tudge’s comments to relate directly to an ongoing appeal.

The case relates to a seven-and-a-half-year non-parole sentence imposed in 2016 on Sevdet Ramadan Besim, who pleaded guilty to planning a terrorist attack in 2015 with plans to behead a police officer on Anzac Day.

The MPs’ comments also seem to conflate political ideology with the judiciary’s administration of justice. Hunt claimed that, in their judges’ discussion of apparent differences between NSW and Victorian judiciaries in terrorism cases, Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and judge Mark Weinberg were endorsing softer sentences as part of “ideological experiments”.

“Comments by senior members of the Victorian courts endorsing and embracing shorter sentences for terrorism offences are deeply concerning — deeply concerning,” Hunt said. “The Andrews government should immediately reject such statements and sentiments.”

“The state courts should not be places for ideological experiments in the face of global and local threats from Islamic extremism that has led to such tragic losses.”

Hunt has since declined to confirm whether he will personally appear tomorrow. But, considering contempt is part of the court’s inherent jurisdiction and offers no maximum penalty or sentence, he could face a range of punishments.

While the comments quickly elicited outrage from legal professionals and Labor MP, — specifically the shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus — the Supreme’s Court decision to summon the trio is shocking. Industry Minister Arthur Sinodinos was surprised by the development, arguing that although politicians should defend the independence of the judiciary they also have an established right to comment on matters of public interest.

For historical context, lawyer Peter Bartlett says the case is “very, very rare” and has not been seen in Australia for “20-30 years”.

“[It’s for] scandalising the court, which is very unusual,” Bartlett told the ABC today. “We’re used to the idea of contempt of court, but scandalising the court is bringing it into disrepute. It hasn’t happened for a long, long time — not involving Australian MPs. I think the last [cases] were in the ’70s and ’80s.”

“In this day and age of robust media and robust comment, the courts and judges are used to being criticised, and take it on the chin,” he said. “I think the ministers were clearly a bit over the top but in this day and age, we all do that from time to time.”

Conversely, the trio has been absolutely slammed by noted refugee lawyer Julian Burnside, who described them as “idiots” who “acted contemptibly”.

While we’re yet to see whether the group’s comments actually count as contempt of court, the whole incident speaks to the Coalition’s broader disregard for the judiciary.

The government’s recently introduced an immigration package that would effectively make Peter Dutton our most (shudder) powerful politician at the expense of the independent Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Yesterday, the government accepted a compensation settlement for refugees detained on Manus, and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott responded in baffling form:

Basically, whatever your political views, please support your local judge. They are often the only thing between you and (eww) Peter Dutton.