Trust in the legal system … Trust in politicians … Grovel from MPs removes charge of scandalising the Yarraside Court of Appeals … Desperate politics … Keeping alive the “blaze of glory” … Own goal by Gorgeous George Brandis 

THEY never seemed like the sharpest tools in the parliamentary shed, so it’s understandable that ministers Greg Hunt, Alan Tudge and Michael Sukkar took a week to work out that a decent grovel to VicAppeals was the way to get off the contempt hook. 

That was after solicitor general Dr. Stephen Donaghue repeatedly refused last week to apologise to the court on behalf of his three clients.  

The Australian, which reported their ill-informed comments under the headline Victorian judiciary ‘light on terrorism’, got out of the blocks fast with a grovel last Friday (June 16). The newspaper’s brief, Will Houghton made a “full and sincere apology”, adding “don’t shoot the messenger” – a remark that  did not amuse Chief Justice Marilyn Warren who told the venerable silk that this is “not a matter for jocularity”. 

Even though the three minister’s are legally trained, they clearly don’t have a clue about the boundaries, which shows the desperation of their politics. 

Hunt, as minister for the environment, gave the go-ahead to coal mines and polices destructive of the environment and the Great Barrier Reef. 

Tudge, a former bag-carrier for foreign minister Alexander (Fishnets) Downer and now minister in charge of Centrelink’s robodebt collection, was the slimy character who leaked to a journalist the personal taxation and relationship details of a blogging welfare recipient.

He claimed to have department legal advice that the leak was within his power, but has refused to release the advice. Robert Richter gave an opinion to the Opposition that Tudge’s actions did not come within the “permitted purpose” exemption in the legislation.  

The contumelious comments were made while Marilyn Warren CJ, Mark Weinberg and Stephen Kaye were hearing sentencing appeals in two terrorism cases and before any judgments had been made. 

Among other things they discussed with counsel the sentencing disparities for terrorism offences in NSW and Victoria. The three ministers clearly had no idea of the context of the court’s deliberations and therefore had no idea what they were talking about. 

Hunt told The Australian:  

“Comments by senior members of the Victorian courts ­endorsing and embracing shorter sentences for terrorism offences are deeply concerning – deeply concerning … The state courts should not be places for ideological experiments in the face of global and local threats from Islamic extremism that has led to such tragic losses.” 

Tudge’s comments were no less restrained: 

“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.”  

Sukkar brought up the rear with a Dutton-style stray: 

“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.” 

Justice Stephen Kaye at the hearing last Friday (June 16) suggested that as lawyers these MPs were not paying attention during their law lectures. “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.”  

At that hearing, the solicitor general withdrew the salient parts of the MPs comments, but still there was no apology. 

Donaghue said:  

“I can convey to the court that I have received instructions to withdraw three of the statements in the article … The statement of Mr Hunt using ‘ideological experiment’ language. That is withdrawn.

The statement of Mr Sukkar that I’ve already withdrawn in ­relation to hard-left activists, and the statement attributed to Mr Tudge referring to judges being divorced from reality … I have been instructed the ministers withdraw all of those.” 

The solicitor general also told the court that the ministers had acted cooperatively when they sent their statements to the newspaper – unsolicited. 

According to attorney general Gorgeous George Brandis’ understanding of the law, the three ministers were indeed guilty of contempt. He said as much to a senate committee last month while trying to get immigration minister Peter Dutton off the hook over his remarks about the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 

The AG drew a distinction between legitimate criticism about the way matters have been handled in a court and attacks on the integrity of the courts: 

“This is the line to be drawn … it is not appropriate to attack the integrity of a court of a tribunal.” 

It’s hard to imagine that “ideological experiments … divorced from reality … hard-left activist judges” were anything other than attacks on the integrity of VicAppeals, particularly as they were directed for publication on the front page of a national newspaper. 

Today (June 23) chief justice Warren said that following the apologies the court would not be referring the MPs for trial on charges of contempt, even though a prime facie case existed. 

Accordingly, the judges successfully put the frighteners on these gormless MPs and in the process warned politicians to keep off the judicial patch. Their glittering careers in parliament would have been over if they had been found guilty and sentenced for an offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer. 

The professional contemner and blow-hard senator Derryn Hinch urged the ministers to stand firm. He would have told the judges to “go jump” because “the system is rotten”. 

It was different in 2013 when he faced jail after revealing the prior criminal record of Adrian Bayley, who murdered Jill Meagher in Melbourne. The Human Headline was then in grovel mode at his sentencing hearing as he sought to avoid another stint in pokey: 

“I was in contempt of court. I committed an offence … and for that I am very sorry.” 

He added that he would never again act as though he was above the law. 

Scandalising the court is a rich and exciting vein in the law of contempt. It got a good boost from Justice John Eardley Wilmot in 1765 in R v Almon: 

“But the principle upon which attachments issue for libels upon courts is to keep a blaze of glory around them, and to deter people from attempting to render them contemptible in the eyes of the public.” 

The last thing the judges wanted was for their blaze of glory to be dimmed by a beat-up in the Murdoch press.