Is News Corp & "The Australian" in contempt of the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Ruby Princess?

New South Wales Special Com... by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/460425328/New-South-Wales-Special-Commission-of-Inquiry-into-the-Ruby-Princess-Remarks-Made-by-Richard-Beasley-SC-8-May-2020

Should Derryn Hinch really be a senator?

THE PROPHETIC QUESTION IS POSED

The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 July 2016:

Should Derryn Hinch really be a senator?......

One of the outcomes of Saturday's federal election is that Victorians now have as one of their 12 representatives in the Senate a man who has over the past 30 years been to jail twice and fined $100,000 for breaching court orders, and who has been roundly criticised by the High Court for undermining the right of an accused person to a fair trial. We are talking about broadcaster Derryn Hinch.

While Hinch is not disqualified under the constitution from being a candidate for the Senate because he is not serving or waiting to serve a sentence for an offence under Commonwealth or state law punishable by a prison sentence of 12 months or more, the broader question is whether a person with Hinch's record is fit to hold the office of a legislator whose role is to ensure that laws are enforceable and that the rule of law is upheld?

THE ANSWER IS IN THE SENATOR'S FAILURE TO SUPPORT THE RULE OF LAW

The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 June 2017:

it was Senator Hinch - twice jailed for contempt - who declared "the system is rotten".

"The three ministers were well within their rights to do what they did," he told Fairfax Media. "If I was the minister I would have told them to go jump. Courts are not inviolate."…

"I watched the performance yesterday and those guys up there in their black robes, it was like something out of Kafka," he said. "If that's contempt of court, I couldn't give a shit."

What was started by three Turnbull Government ministers allegedly working in unison to attack the judiciary now threatens to widen into something that may not be able to be easily contained.

Considering a matter for prosecution

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) prosecutes counter-terrorism matters through the Organised Crime and Counter Terrorism Practice Group.

The CDPP appeared for The Queen as head of the Commonwealth of Australia in the matter of an Australian-born 18 year-old charged with plotting a terrorist act in 2015.

The young man plead guilty, was convicted of the offence in September 2016 and sentenced to ten years imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven and a half years.

In October 2016 the Commonwealth of Australia appealed the length of his sentence.

So by June 2017 the CDPP representing the Commonwealth of Australia was again in court presenting the argument for a longer sentence.

Enter two Commonwealth ministers, the Minister for Health Greg Hunt and Minister for Human Services Alan Tudge who, along with Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar, proceeded to criticize the judge/s hearing this appeal in an article published in The Australian on 13 June 2017.

Mr Hunt said "the state courts should not be places for ideological experiments in the face of global and local threats from Islamic extremism….".

Mr Tudge was quoted as saying “Some of these judges are ­divorced from reality….We have a crisis on our hands with people who want to kill ­indiscriminately and yet some judges seem more concerned about the terrorists than the safety of the community.”

Mr Sukkar opined “It’s the attitude of judges like these which has eroded any trust that remained in our legal system…Labor’s continued appointment of hard-left activist judges has come back to bite Victorians. Our judiciary should focus more on victims and the safety of our society, and less on the rights of terrorists who don’t respect our society, its laws or our people.”

All these statements were made while the Commonwealth’s appeal was still before the Court.

Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar very belatedly withdrew their remarks but arrogantly refused to apologise for these comments when lawyers for the three appeared in the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court in Melbourne on 16 June, to explain why they shouldn't be referred for prosecution for contempt.

In criminal matters before Victorian courts "penalties for contempt usually consist of fines, imprisonment or both".

In my humble opinion Messrs. Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar deserve to be referred and have the matter heard summarily by a judge as the alleged contempt was of a serious nature, freely made and offered to a national newpaper for publication by unsolicited email, committed in the course of an appeal of a judgment in a trial for serious criminal offences and, to date there has been no apology or public expression of contrition and full acceptance of the Court's authority.

UPDATE 2:06AM 18 JUNE 2017

Supreme Court of Victoria live stream of the matter of explanations as to why Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar should not be referred for prosecution for contempt:

https://www.streaming.scvwebcast1.com/hearing-14-june-2017-10-30am/

Many thanks to Josh Bornstein for posting this link on social media.

UPDATE 4:10PM 22 June 2017

Since their original defiance Messrs. Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar have had second thoughts.

First the Prime Minister had committed the uncomfortable error of publicly defending their attack.

INTERVIEW WITH TOM ELLIOTT, Radio 3AW, transcript, 15 June 2017:

TOM ELLIOTT:

Is this unusual for three of your ministers to be hauled into court to explain themselves?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well it certainly is unusual but it is not unusual for Victorians to express real concern about public safety in their state.

Those three ministers, yes they are ministers in my government, they are Members of Parliament but they are also citizens of Victoria and residents of Victoria and you know, as your listeners do, that there is real concern about law and order and the failure of the state government and the system in Victoria to protect people.

Look, I think it is a matter of the justice system, the legal system in Victoria, the criminal justice system is a matter of real public interest and my ministers are focused on public safety, they are working with me and the rest of our team and our agencies to do everything we can to keep Australians safe and defeat Islamist terrorism.

TOM ELLIOTT:

Will the three ministers appear in court on Friday?

PRIME MINISTER:

I can’t answer that. I am sure they would be represented but whether they appear in person, that is a matter for them. I am not sure what arrangements they’ve made.

Then Senator Derryn Hinch added his inflammatory mite and debate on social media widened..

Finally, in the early hours of 22 June BuzzFeed posted images the three amigos had hoped would fade into oblivion when, along with offending tweets, they deleted these Facebook posts:

By late afternoon on 22 June 2017 The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

A trio of Turnbull government ministers will make an abject apology to Victoria's highest court on Friday, a week after they refused to apologise for comments critical of the judiciary.

Fairfax Media has learned that Health Minister Greg Hunt, Human Services Minister Alan Tudge and Assistant Minister to the Treasurer Michael Sukkar have now decided to reverse course and make the special apology.

The hearing on Friday is going ahead at the request of the ministers and is designed to bring the matter to an end.

I suggest we all rememebr these faces at the next federal election....

Left to Right: Human Services Minister Alan Tudge MP for Aston, Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar MP for Deakin & 
Health Minister Greg Hunt MP for Flinders

Human Services Minister Alan Tudge says the public is "fed up". You bet we are!

The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 June 2017:

Judges and magistrates have lashed out at "grossly improper and unfair" conduct by several Turnbull government MPs, who accused Victorian courts of being too soft on terror offenders.

Federal Liberal MP Alan Tudge has taken a public swipe at Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews over the State's soft terror laws and the Premier has answered his critic.

The three ministers' criticisms of the courts have appalled the professional association of judges, which said the comments could be misconstrued as an attempt to interfere in a case before the courts.

Judicial Conference of Australia president Robert Beech-Jones said the "co-ordinated and direct attack" on the independence of the courts risked undermining public confidence in the judiciary.

"The statements attributed to the ministers are deeply troubling. They represent a threat to the rule of law. They should never have been made." Justice Beech-Jones said.

Victorian Attorney-General Martin Pakula also hit back at the federal frontbenchers, warning they have come "dangerously close" to contempt of court.

Following national agreement to toughen parole and bail laws to prevent violent extremists being released from prison, Health Minister Greg Hunt and Human Services Minister Alan Tudge claimed Victorian judges were failing the public.

Triggered by recent courtroom comments from Victorian Supreme Court Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and Justice Mark Weinberg, Mr Hunt said their apparent support for lighter sentences was "deeply concerning". Mr Tudge said the public was "fed up".

So Human Services Minister and Liberal MP for Aston Alan Tudge thinks the public is "fed up".

You bet we are!

However, I suspect that it is not the judiciary which has caused this reaction so much as it is the antics of Alan Tudge and his Coalition cronies.

This constant ideological assault on the nation’s legal, political and social institutions and, the continuing erosion of the citizen’s civil and human rights, has moved well beyond the pale.

This latest attack on the judiciary has provoked a response from the Supreme Court of Victoria that Mr. Tudge in his overweening sense political superiority probably did not even consider.

Judicial Conference of Australia: Media Release Grossly Improper Attack on Vic Judiciary 13 June 2017 by clarencegirl on Scribd

The Age, 14 June 2017:

Three senior Turnbull government ministers will be hauled before the Supreme Court of Victoria to explain why they should not be charged with contempt after accusing the judiciary of advocating softer sentences for terrorists.

In an explosive development, the Supreme Court has ordered Health Minister Greg Hunt, Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar and Human Services Minister Alan Tudge to appear on Friday "to make any submissions as to why they should not be referred for prosecution for contempt" .

A letter from Judicial Registrar Ian Irving obtained by Fairfax Media says comments by the three ministers published in the The Australian accusing the judiciary of going soft on terrorists would appear to bring the court into disrepute.

"The attributed statements were published whilst the judgements of the Court of Appeal were reserved," the letter 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 extraordinary order follows comments published in The Australian in which the senior ministers blasted the Victorian judiciary for handing down lighter sentences for terrorists as part of "ideological experiments".

The judicial registrar has also written to The Australian's editor and the journalist Simon Benson asking them or their legal representatives to attend the court, alongside legal representatives for News Limited.