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/22/three-federal-ministers-to-apologise-to-victorian-court-to-avert-possible-contempt-charges
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Three federal ministers to apologise to Victorian court to avert possible contempt charges | Three federal ministers to apologise to Victorian court to avert possible contempt charges |
| (4 months later) | |
| Three federal ministers will apologise to the Victorian supreme court to head off possible contempt of court charges against them for comments in which they criticised the leniency of its sentences for terrorism offences. | Three federal ministers will apologise to the Victorian supreme court to head off possible contempt of court charges against them for comments in which they criticised the leniency of its sentences for terrorism offences. |
| Guardian Australia understands the health minister, Greg Hunt, the human services minister, Alan Tudge, and the assistant minister to the treasurer, Michael Sukkar, have sought a hearing in the matter to make an apology. | Guardian Australia understands the health minister, Greg Hunt, the human services minister, Alan Tudge, and the assistant minister to the treasurer, Michael Sukkar, have sought a hearing in the matter to make an apology. |
| A spokeswoman for the Victorian supreme court confirmed the matter had been listed for a hearing on Friday. | A spokeswoman for the Victorian supreme court confirmed the matter had been listed for a hearing on Friday. |
| Coalition ministers may face contempt charges over terrorism remarks – report | |
| The court is considering whether the three ministers should be referred for prosecution for contempt of court over comments made to the Australian over terrorism sentences. | The court is considering whether the three ministers should be referred for prosecution for contempt of court over comments made to the Australian over terrorism sentences. |
| At a hearing last Friday the trio, represented by the commonwealth solicitor general, Stephen Donaghue, failed to apologise for the remarks choosing instead to express “deepest regret”. | At a hearing last Friday the trio, represented by the commonwealth solicitor general, Stephen Donaghue, failed to apologise for the remarks choosing instead to express “deepest regret”. |
| Initially, the three ministers did not withdraw the remarks. After intense judicial questioning and receiving further instructions mid-hearing, Donaghue said his clients wished to retract the remarks that judges were conducting “ideological experiments” (Hunt), were “divorced from reality” (Tudge) and were “hard-left activist judges” (Sukkar). | Initially, the three ministers did not withdraw the remarks. After intense judicial questioning and receiving further instructions mid-hearing, Donaghue said his clients wished to retract the remarks that judges were conducting “ideological experiments” (Hunt), were “divorced from reality” (Tudge) and were “hard-left activist judges” (Sukkar). |
| On Wednesday Sukkar and Tudge deleted tweets linking to the Australian article. | On Wednesday Sukkar and Tudge deleted tweets linking to the Australian article. |
| The comments concerned an appeal being heard by the chief justice, Marilyn Warren, and judges Mark Weinberg and Stephen Kaye over the sentencing of two Melbourne teenagers – Sevdet Besim and a teen known only as MHK – which the commonwealth director of public prosecutions argued had been too lenient. | The comments concerned an appeal being heard by the chief justice, Marilyn Warren, and judges Mark Weinberg and Stephen Kaye over the sentencing of two Melbourne teenagers – Sevdet Besim and a teen known only as MHK – which the commonwealth director of public prosecutions argued had been too lenient. |
| 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. | 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.” |
| The three Victorian ministers, who all have bachelor degrees in law, face possible contempt of court charges. | The three Victorian ministers, who all have bachelor degrees in law, face possible contempt of court charges. |
| Convictions for contempt can lead to fines or even imprisonment, which could make them ineligible for parliament under section 44 of the Australian constitution. | Convictions for contempt can lead to fines or even imprisonment, which could make them ineligible for parliament under section 44 of the Australian constitution. |
| Warren said the comments by the ministers “failed to respect the doctrine of separation of powers, breach the principle of sub judice and reflect a lack of proper understanding of the importance to our democracy of the independence of the judiciary from the political arms of government”. | Warren said the comments by the ministers “failed to respect the doctrine of separation of powers, breach the principle of sub judice and reflect a lack of proper understanding of the importance to our democracy of the independence of the judiciary from the political arms of government”. |
| Kaye added: “It is a matter of very deep concern that three ministers of the crown are clearly so ignorant of the separation of powers and sub judice concept. That disturbs me greatly, not only as a judge of this court, but as a member of our nation.” | Kaye added: “It is a matter of very deep concern that three ministers of the crown are clearly so ignorant of the separation of powers and sub judice concept. That disturbs me greatly, not only as a judge of this court, but as a member of our nation.” |
| Guardian Australia contacted Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar for comment. | Guardian Australia contacted Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar for comment. |
| Liberal party | Liberal party |
| Greg Hunt | Greg Hunt |
| Australian politics | Australian politics |
| Victoria | Victoria |
| Victorian politics | Victorian politics |
| Law (Australia) | Law (Australia) |
| news | news |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |