MPs defiant on court slur

THREE Turnbull Government ministers have eventually withdrawn comments they made about the Victorian judiciary’s decisions on terror sentencing, but they refuse to apologise.

Health Minister Greg Hunt, Human Services Minister Alan Tudge and Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar were called to appear at the Supreme Court in Melbourne to explain why they shouldn’t be charged with contempt over comments they made in a front-page article in The Australian newspaper.

The court heard the ministers sent unsolicited emails to a reporter saying Victorian judges were out of touch with reality, and were also “hard left activists” and conducting “ideological experiments”.

Commonwealth SolicitorGeneral Stephen Donaghue yesterday initially told Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and Justices Mark Weinberg and Stephen Kaye that the MPs — who were not in court — regretted their language but stood by their comments.

But soon after, he said his position had “evolved” and the ministers now withdrew their comments, but they were not apologising for them. Mr Donaghue said the MPs did not intend to influence the court nor undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

However, Chief Justice Warren said the article contained a connotation that some judges were corrupt because they came to the hearing with an already formed intellectual view.

Justice Warren expressed concern the ministers’ statements tried to influence decisions and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, considering the court’s decisions in the two appeals referred to are pending.

Justice Kaye slammed the MPs’ ignorance of the separation of powers between the government and judiciary.

Defence barrister Robert Richter QC, who is defending a terrorist in one of the appeals, said the comments were “calculated to intimidate the court”. “It was an outrageous attack on members of the judiciary by men who should know better because they’re lawyers,” he said.

The Australian told the court it offered a “full and sincere” apology.

The court reserved judgment on whether to prosecute for contempt of court.