This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/16/federal-ministers-fail-to-apology-for-attack-on-hard-left-judges
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Federal ministers fail to apologise for attack on 'hard-left' judges | Federal ministers fail to apologise for attack on 'hard-left' judges |
| (about 21 hours later) | |
| Greg Hunt, Alan Tudge and Michael Sukkar were not in court in Melbourne to explain their comments about justices ‘divorced from reality’ | |
| Calla Wahlquist | |
| Fri 16 Jun 2017 07.38 BST | |
| First published on Fri 16 Jun 2017 07.33 BST | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| Three Turnbull government ministers have failed to apologise to the Victorian court of appeal for comments describing judges as “hard-left activists”, “divorced from reality,” and conducting an “ideological experiment”. | Three Turnbull government ministers have failed to apologise to the Victorian court of appeal for comments describing judges as “hard-left activists”, “divorced from reality,” and conducting an “ideological experiment”. |
| Health minister Greg Hunt, human services minister Alan Tudge and assistant treasurer Michael Sukkar were asked to explain their comments to the court on Friday, three days after they were quoted in the Australian. | Health minister Greg Hunt, human services minister Alan Tudge and assistant treasurer Michael Sukkar were asked to explain their comments to the court on Friday, three days after they were quoted in the Australian. |
| The comments related to an ABC report of an appeal being heard by the court in which the commonwealth director of public prosecutions had requested two Victorian teenagers convicted of terrorism offences be given longer sentences. | The comments related to an ABC report of an appeal being heard by the court in which the commonwealth director of public prosecutions had requested two Victorian teenagers convicted of terrorism offences be given longer sentences. |
| The appeal was concluded on Friday and judgment reserved. | The appeal was concluded on Friday and judgment reserved. |
| An extraordinary sitting of the court followed in which the ministers were asked to explain their comments. Chief justice Marilyn Warren said the remarks had left the court in the “invidious position” of the integrity of the appeal judgment being questioned, no matter how properly it was arrived at by the court. | An extraordinary sitting of the court followed in which the ministers were asked to explain their comments. Chief justice Marilyn Warren said the remarks had left the court in the “invidious position” of the integrity of the appeal judgment being questioned, no matter how properly it was arrived at by the court. |
| “On the one hand, if we don’t allow the appeal then we will be accused of engaging in an ideological experiment of being hard-left activist judges,” Warren said. | “On the one hand, if we don’t allow the appeal then we will be accused of engaging in an ideological experiment of being hard-left activist judges,” Warren said. |
| “On the other hand, if we increase the sentences, the respondents would be concerned that we were responding to the concerns raised by three senior commonwealth ministers.” | “On the other hand, if we increase the sentences, the respondents would be concerned that we were responding to the concerns raised by three senior commonwealth ministers.” |
| Warren began the hearing on Friday by reassuring both the public and the teenagers whose sentences are up for appeal that the court would not be influenced in any way by the politicians’ remarks. | Warren began the hearing on Friday by reassuring both the public and the teenagers whose sentences are up for appeal that the court would not be influenced in any way by the politicians’ remarks. |
| None of the three ministers, whose electorates are all in Victoria, attended the court in Melbourne, leaving the task of representing them to the solicitor general, Stephen Donoghue QC. | None of the three ministers, whose electorates are all in Victoria, attended the court in Melbourne, leaving the task of representing them to the solicitor general, Stephen Donoghue QC. |
| The purpose of the hearing was not to determine if the ministers had committed contempt of court but to determine whether it ought to be referred to for prosecution. | The purpose of the hearing was not to determine if the ministers had committed contempt of court but to determine whether it ought to be referred to for prosecution. |
| It was the first time such senior politicians had been called before the court to explain possibly contemptuous remarks in about 30 years, and attracted enormous interest from Melbourne’s legal community, with lawyers filling the two-storey public gallery. | It was the first time such senior politicians had been called before the court to explain possibly contemptuous remarks in about 30 years, and attracted enormous interest from Melbourne’s legal community, with lawyers filling the two-storey public gallery. |
| The ministers were “invited” to attend the court to make “any remarks they wished to make”, which Warren said was generally taken as an opportunity to apologise and withdraw potentially contemptuous statements before the matter proceeded any further. | The ministers were “invited” to attend the court to make “any remarks they wished to make”, which Warren said was generally taken as an opportunity to apologise and withdraw potentially contemptuous statements before the matter proceeded any further. |
| No apology was offered. Instead, Donoghue said the ministers “expressed deepest regret” if their comments had caused in concern and said they were made “in good faith” as a contribution to the general debate around sentencing of terrorism offences, and were not intended to disparage, pressure or undermine public confidence in the court. | No apology was offered. Instead, Donoghue said the ministers “expressed deepest regret” if their comments had caused in concern and said they were made “in good faith” as a contribution to the general debate around sentencing of terrorism offences, and were not intended to disparage, pressure or undermine public confidence in the court. |
| Donoghue said the ministers made the comments in response to the quoted remarks of Warren and fellow judges Mark Weinberg and Stephen Kaye in the report by the ABC, where Warren remarked on the “enormous gap” in the sentencing of terrorism offences between Victoria and New South Wales. Warren said on Friday those comments were made as part of a lengthy and detailed discussion, offered in response to a question from the DPP, and had been taken out of context by the ministers. | Donoghue said the ministers made the comments in response to the quoted remarks of Warren and fellow judges Mark Weinberg and Stephen Kaye in the report by the ABC, where Warren remarked on the “enormous gap” in the sentencing of terrorism offences between Victoria and New South Wales. Warren said on Friday those comments were made as part of a lengthy and detailed discussion, offered in response to a question from the DPP, and had been taken out of context by the ministers. |
| She asked if any of the ministers had read the transcript of the appeal hearing, or if they were aware that the appeal had not been finalised. | She asked if any of the ministers had read the transcript of the appeal hearing, or if they were aware that the appeal had not been finalised. |
| Donoghue said they had not read the transcript and they might not have been aware of the context in which comments by Warren and others, quoted by the ABC, were made. | Donoghue said they had not read the transcript and they might not have been aware of the context in which comments by Warren and others, quoted by the ABC, were made. |
| “They were simply speaking without any appreciation of the kinds of complex considerations that were before the court,” Weinberg said. | “They were simply speaking without any appreciation of the kinds of complex considerations that were before the court,” Weinberg said. |
| “They were speaking in response to what they knew from a public debate … it’s certainly less than the transcript provided,” Donoghue replied. | “They were speaking in response to what they knew from a public debate … it’s certainly less than the transcript provided,” Donoghue replied. |
| Asked if he was instructed to provide an apology, Donoghue said: “My instructions are to read what I’ve read.” | Asked if he was instructed to provide an apology, Donoghue said: “My instructions are to read what I’ve read.” |
| Almost an hour into the hearing, Donoghue said his instructions had “evolved somewhat in the time before this court”, and each of the ministers would withdraw their most inflammatory remark. Hunt withdrew the remark relating to “ideological experiments”, Tudge withdrew his suggestion that judges were “divorced from reality”, and Sukkar retracted his comment relating to “hard-left activist judges”. | Almost an hour into the hearing, Donoghue said his instructions had “evolved somewhat in the time before this court”, and each of the ministers would withdraw their most inflammatory remark. Hunt withdrew the remark relating to “ideological experiments”, Tudge withdrew his suggestion that judges were “divorced from reality”, and Sukkar retracted his comment relating to “hard-left activist judges”. |
| The Australian newspaper, its publisher, Nationwide News, and the author of the article, national political editor Simon Benson, were also asked to explain themselves to the court. | The Australian newspaper, its publisher, Nationwide News, and the author of the article, national political editor Simon Benson, were also asked to explain themselves to the court. |
| Barrister William Houghton said Benson was sent separate unsolicited statements from the three ministers between 12.36pm and 1.42pm on Monday, which he quoted in the article. | Barrister William Houghton said Benson was sent separate unsolicited statements from the three ministers between 12.36pm and 1.42pm on Monday, which he quoted in the article. |
| He said the Australian was “merely the messenger, the medium” and that it neither endorsed nor agreed with the comments it published. He said Benson had not read the transcript of the appeal hearing either and relied on the ABC report. But he provided “greater context” by quoting from the trial judge who sentenced one of the teenagers, Sevdet Besim, to 10 years’ jail for his role in a plot to kill a police officer on Anzac Day 2015. | He said the Australian was “merely the messenger, the medium” and that it neither endorsed nor agreed with the comments it published. He said Benson had not read the transcript of the appeal hearing either and relied on the ABC report. But he provided “greater context” by quoting from the trial judge who sentenced one of the teenagers, Sevdet Besim, to 10 years’ jail for his role in a plot to kill a police officer on Anzac Day 2015. |
| “If the Australian newspaper has caused offence to this honourable court – and it seems that offence has ultimately and unfortunately been caused – then the Australian offers a full and sincere apology,” Houghton said. | “If the Australian newspaper has caused offence to this honourable court – and it seems that offence has ultimately and unfortunately been caused – then the Australian offers a full and sincere apology,” Houghton said. |
| He said that “the reasonable reader, the rationally-minded citizen, the readers of the Australian” would not diminish their respect for the court and court processes as a result of the story. | He said that “the reasonable reader, the rationally-minded citizen, the readers of the Australian” would not diminish their respect for the court and court processes as a result of the story. |
| He said readers might instead be more critical of the ministers and think them “wrong-headed”, a phrase which has an ascribed meaning in contempt law, or “bone-headed”, which does not. | He said readers might instead be more critical of the ministers and think them “wrong-headed”, a phrase which has an ascribed meaning in contempt law, or “bone-headed”, which does not. |
| Lawyers for Besim and a teenager referred to as MHK said they were grateful for the court’s reassurance that the outcome of the appeal would not be affected, but their clients were nevertheless concerned. | Lawyers for Besim and a teenager referred to as MHK said they were grateful for the court’s reassurance that the outcome of the appeal would not be affected, but their clients were nevertheless concerned. |
| “[MHK] is terrified by the news coverage, and he is not terrified because he fears that he will get a sensible outcome,” council for MHK, Robert Richter QC, said. | “[MHK] is terrified by the news coverage, and he is not terrified because he fears that he will get a sensible outcome,” council for MHK, Robert Richter QC, said. |
| The court withheld its decision on whether to pursue the matter. | The court withheld its decision on whether to pursue the matter. |
| Australian law | |
| Australian politics | |
| Australian security and counter-terrorism | |
| Greg Hunt | |
| Victoria | |
| news | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |