Author Topic: Malcolm Turnbull defends ministers amid free speech debate over terror sentencing comments (AUS)  (Read 297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has defended three of his ministers who are under fire for attacking Victoria's judiciary, arguing the justice system is "not immune from public criticism".
Key points:

    Three Senior Coalition ministers criticised the way Victorian judges hand down terror offence sentences
    They have been called upon to face court tomorrow
    Senator David Leyonhjelm described the courts actions an attack on free speech, MP Adam Broad says the incident is a reminder for politicians

Health Minister Greg Hunt, Human Services Minister Alan Tudge and Assistant to the Treasurer Michael Sukkar have all been told they or their legal representatives must appear before the Victorian Court of Appeal tomorrow over comments they have made about sentencing in terrorism cases.

They criticised the state's judges in an article in The Australian newspaper in relation to appeals in two cases in which the court had reserved its decision.

Mr Turnbull conceded it was unusual for federal ministers to be facing court over such accusations but he said it was not unusual for politicians to express "real concerns about public safety in their state".

"There is real concern about law and order and the failure by the State Government and the system in Victoria to people," he told Melbourne's 3AW.

"It's a matter of real public interest and my ministers are focused on public safety."

He added courts are "not immune from public criticism" and said the justice system has in the past, strongly defended the rights of Australians to find fault in its decisions or punishments.

A letter from the court to Attorney-General George Brandis said the Ministers' 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 that the judges will not apply the law".

"The attributed statements, on their face [value], also appear to be calculated to influence the court in its decision or decisions and to interfere with the due administration of justice in this state."

More: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-15/free-speech-debate-ramps-up-after-mps-called-into-court/8619876
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink