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/14/coalition-ministers-may-face-contempt-charges-over-terrorism-remarks-report
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Coalition ministers may face contempt charges over terrorism remarks – report | Coalition ministers may face contempt charges over terrorism remarks – report |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Three senior federal Liberal MPs will reportedly have to explain to the Victorian supreme court why they shouldn’t be charged with contempt over comments they made relating to terrorist sentences. | Three senior federal Liberal MPs will reportedly have to explain to the Victorian supreme court why they shouldn’t be charged with contempt over comments they made relating to terrorist sentences. |
| The human services minister, Alan Tudge, the health minister, Greg Hunt, and the assistant treasurer, Michael Sukkar, have all been ordered to appear in court in Melbourne on Friday, Fairfax Media has reported. | The human services minister, Alan Tudge, the health minister, Greg Hunt, and the assistant treasurer, Michael Sukkar, have all been ordered to appear in court in Melbourne on Friday, Fairfax Media has reported. |
| They will reportedly be required to make submissions on why they should not be referred for prosecution, after telling the the Australian newspaper that the Victorian judiciary was being soft on terrorists. | They will reportedly be required to make submissions on why they should not be referred for prosecution, after telling the the Australian newspaper that the Victorian judiciary was being soft on terrorists. |
| “The attributed statements appear 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,” a letter by judicial registrar Ian Irving seen by Fairfax says. | “The attributed statements appear 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,” a letter by judicial registrar Ian Irving seen by Fairfax says. |
| Contempt of court proceedings aim to uphold the administration of justice, and can be initiated by the court when there are concerns a case may be undermined. | Contempt of court proceedings aim to uphold the administration of justice, and can be initiated by the court when there are concerns a case may be undermined. |
| Contempt is criminal in nature, but it generally follow the same process of civil proceedings. Because it’s part of the court’s inherent jurisdiction, punishment for contempt can vary considerably. | Contempt is criminal in nature, but it generally follow the same process of civil proceedings. Because it’s part of the court’s inherent jurisdiction, punishment for contempt can vary considerably. |
| There is no maximum penalty or sentence for contempt, and the court has broad discretion to determine the punishment it sees fit. | There is no maximum penalty or sentence for contempt, and the court has broad discretion to determine the punishment it sees fit. |
| A letter by Judicial Registrar Ian Irving seen by Fairfax Media reportedly says: “The attributed statements appear 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.” | |
| The industry minister, Arthur Sinodinos, said he was surprised by the development. | |
| “Politicians from time to time will say some pretty colourful things,” Senator Sinodinos told ABC radio on Wednesday. “This is a country that prides itself on free speech.”Senator Sinodinos said politicians had a right to comment on matters of public interest and policy but acknowledged they also should defend the independence of the judiciary. | |
| Hunt claimed Victorian judges made “deeply concerning” comments during an appeal hearing for a convicted terrorist on Friday and accused the court of becoming a forum for “ideological experiments”. | |
| The comments made by senior supreme court judges concerned apparent differences between the NSW and Victorian judiciaries when imposing sentences for terror offences. | |
| Hunt told the Australian the judges were “endorsing and embracing shorter sentences” and urged Premier Daniel Andrews to reject their statements. | |
| Justice Robert Beech-Jones, president of the Judicial Conference of Australia which represents judges and magistrates, said the comments were a slur on the Victorian judiciary. | |
| Justice Beech-Jones warned the comments threatened to undermine public confidence in the courts. | |
| “The statements attributed to the ministers are deeply troubling. They represent a threat to the rule of law. They should never have been made,” he said on Tuesday. |