Update on Australian Cardinal George Pell: charged with mulitiple sexual offences by Victoria Police

Australian Cardinal George Pell, currently living and working in the Vatican, has been charged on summons by Victoria Police with multiple serious historical sexual offences.

WATCH the whole press conference where @VictoriaPolice announce Cardinal George Pell has been charged with historical sex offences. pic.twitter.com/kiyGv691Q9

— ABC News (@abcnews) June 29, 2017

 The Australian, 29 June 2017:

No-one with credibility in the church underestimates the damage caused by clergy abuse, a stain that could still be decades from being rubbed out.

This is the broader challenge facing the Catholic hierarchy.

An 18-month or two year court battle, regardless of whether or not it finds in favour of Pell, will mark more lost time as the church tries to deal with the aftermath of the abuse scandal.

This negative publicity will be compounded by the ongoing reporting of the child sex abuse royal commission, which is still to hand down major reports into the Melbourne and Ballarat case studies.

Pell, being the divisive figure that he is and has been, is receiving support from many of his senior peers but the church is also home to many who believe the institution can only move forward when it sees the cardinal’s back.

Perhaps a fairer perspective is to withhold judgment until the evidence is presented to the court.

It’s often been said but it is worth repeating; the least the victims deserve is the truth, which has been in short supply for too long.

BACKGROUND

Further to Cardinal George Pell’s evidence given to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse¹.

The Australian, 16 May 2017:

<

Lawyers representing George Pell have demanded an apology and retraction from Fairfax and The Guardian over articles ­repeating child sexual abuse alle­gations made in a new book ­described by the cardinal as a “character assassination”.

The legal demands were sent to the media outlets at the weekend after a book made a series of allegations against Cardinal Pell over his role in the sex abuse scandal engulfing the Catholic Church…..

MUP chief executive Louise Adler said the publishing house had received letters from Cardinal Pell’s representatives but no legal action had been threatened.

Crikey, 23 May 2017:

George Pell, both the man and his troubles with the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, might be affecting Australia’s representation in the highest council of the Catholic Church, the College of Cardinals — which elects the Pope — given Sydney (and Melbourne) once more missed out in the latest, very eclectic list from Pope Francis.

Seven News, 20 June 2017:

Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton told ABC radio Cardinal Pell's lawyers will be told first, once a decision is made whether to charge him.

"A decision is imminent," Mr Ashton told ABC this morning.

"There is a great deal of public interest in it [the George Pell case].

"We'll get something out soon."

It's the third time Mr Ashton has promised an "imminent" decision on the allegations after police got advice from the state's Director of Public Prosecutions on May 16.

On May 18 Mr Ashton said the process wouldn't take too long, and a decision would be reached within a few weeks.

A week later he told 3AW the decision was not too far off.

"The decision is imminent on that," Mr Ashton said on May 25.

On June 1 he described it as "fairly imminent".

The Australian, 24 June 2017:

Those closest to George Pell are increasingly pessimistic about his chances of avoiding charges over historical child sex abuse ­allegations.

The Weekend Australian has been told by multiple sources that — despite his vehement ­denial of wrongdoing — there is a growing resignation that ­charges will almost certainly be laid, plunging the church into what would be an unprecedented scandal.

The Rule Of Law Institute Of Australia Incorporated (a somewhat obscure not-for-profit organisation registered in June 2010) also offered its mite on the subject in The Australian on 25 June 2017:

Victoria Police has been warned not to charge Cardinal George Pell over alleged child sexual abuse to clear the air, or to stage a show trial in response to intense public interest and anger over clerical sex abuse in general.

Lawyer Robin Speed, president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia said prosecutors should act against Cardinal Pell only if they were fully satisfied about the quality of the evidence.

“They should not act in response to the baying of a section of the mob,’’ he said…..

Mr Speed said that if the cardinal was charged and found innocent the drawn out conduct of the investigation over two years could warrant a judicial inquiry.

Footnote

1. Cardinal George Pell gave evidence from 29 February 2016 by video link from Rome concerning Case Study 35: Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Case Study 28: Catholic Church authorities in Ballarat. Reports on Case Study 28 (Catholic Church authorities in Ballarat) and Case Study 35 (Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne) are yet to be published. 

Trump still unwilling to let his 'Muslim Travel Ban' go

According to Lawfare on 13 June 2017 :

Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed in part a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's revised travel ban issued by a federal district court in Hawaii v. Trump. The decision comes on the heels of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in IRAP v. Trump, which we summarized for Lawfare here. The government has appealed that decision to the Supreme Court…..

The court rests its holding on statutory limits to the President’s immigration powers. Although the court recognizes the President’s broad powers to control an alien’s entry to the country and to protect the nation, the court concludes that Trump exceeded the authority given him by Congress when he suspended the entry of 180 million nationals from six countries, suspended the entry of all refugees, and reduced the admission cap of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 because he did not make a sufficient finding that their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The court also finds that the executive order is also incongruent with other INA provisions, including anti-discrimination provisions, and upheld the preliminary enjoining of most of Sections 2 and 6 of the order.

Donald Trump then issued this presidential memorandum while he awaits the response of the US Supreme Court.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

June 14, 2017

Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE                                        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
                                       THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
                                       THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

SUBJECT:         Effective Date in Executive Order 13780

This memorandum provides guidance for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence in light of two preliminary injunctions that bar enforcement of certain provisions of Executive Order 13780, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (Mar. 6, 2017).  The preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and affirmed in substantial part by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, bars enforcement of section 2(c) of the Executive Order.  The portions of the preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii that were affirmed by the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit bar enforcement of certain provisions of sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order.

Various provisions of sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order (as well as sections 3 and 12(c), which delineate the scope of the suspension contained in section 2(c)), refer to the Order's effective date.  Section 14 of the Executive Order provides that the Order was effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on March 16, 2017.  Sections 2 and 6, however, were enjoined before that effective date, and the courts of appeals have affirmed the injunctions with respect to certain provisions of sections 2 and 6.  As a result, under the terms of the Executive Order, the effective date of the enjoined provisions (as well as related provisions of sections 3 and 12(c)) is delayed or tolled until those injunctions are lifted or stayed.

In light of questions in litigation about the effective date of the enjoined provisions and in the interest of clarity, I hereby declare the effective date of each enjoined provision to be the date and time at which the referenced injunctions are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision.  To the extent it is necessary, this memorandum should be construed to amend the Executive Order.

Because the injunctions have delayed the effective date of section 12(c), no immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the effective date of section 2(c) shall be revoked pursuant to the Executive Order.

I hereby direct the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly begin implementation of each relevant provision of sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order 72 hours after all applicable injunctions are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision, to ensure an orderly and proper implementation of those provisions.  Prior to that time, consular officers may issue valid visas to, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may admit, otherwise eligible aliens without regard to sections 2 and 6.  If not otherwise revoked, visas and other travel documents issued during this period remain valid for travel as if they were issued prior to the effective date.

DONALD J. TRUMP

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.

Lawyers, including the country's peak law body, have condemned Immigration Minister Peter Dutton

Australia would do well to remember that besides being a wealthy property developer, the far-right Australian Immigration Minister and Liberal MP for Dickson, Peter Craig Dutton (left), is a former Queensland police officer.

Neither occupation has a history of probity in that state* nor its members a reputation for an ability to look beyond their own narrow self-interests.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 June 2017:

Lawyers, including the country's peak law body, have condemned Immigration Minister Peter Dutton's latest citizenship crackdown as a power grab that threatens the independence of the judiciary.

Under changes to be put to Parliament this week, the minister will be empowered to overrule citizenship decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in a bid to put a stop to its "silly" rulings……

Law Council of Australia president Fiona McLeod said she would await the full details, but reports of the tribunal being hamstrung were worrying.

"That's a very grave concern," she said. "Any attempt to wind back review powers should be treated with concern."……

Australian National University law professor Kim Rubenstein, who consulted on the 2008 citizenship revamp, warned against granting individual government ministers more and more power.

"That becomes a slippery slope to very draconian environments," she said. "We as Australians take these things too much for granted."

Western Sydney University law lecturer Jason Donnelly said it "completely undermines the object and independence of the AAT" and "shows a growing imbalance" in the separation of powers.

"It opens the can of worms to the abrogation of other fundamental rights," he said. "The courts have a fundamental role in protecting rights - because the government certainly isn't doing it."

* See The Moonlight State and Property developer donated to LNP after controversial Stuart Robert speech