What might have been seen as just three politicians shooting their mouths off once again, pandering to their constituency of bottom feeders, and nothing more, could actually be the catalyst that brings down the government. It is possible the thoughtless brain explosions by Messer’s; Hunt, Sukkar and Tudge, ministers in the already teetering Turnbull government, could well have supplied the spark that will see the Coalition government crash and burn! very shortly.
The tree ministers, or should I say the three stooges, have been hauled before The Court of Appeal in Victoria, and face the prospect of being charged with contempt of court, if found guilty, the three may well be ineligible to sit in Parliament as per the Constitution. If that was to be the case, the Turnbull government would certainly fall, with a no confidence motion, and a new election called.

Dear Paul,

I very much doubt whether any charges will be laid
in all three cases. Merely a rap across the knuckles
(if that) will probably apply. Ministers should know
better than to pass judgements on judicial decisions
while the cases are still pending. It's not a good
look and they should know better.

Would it be possible to charge the parliaments with contempt ? A jury of say 12 million..

Hi Foxy, yes that is one possibility. Judging by what the Usual Suspects, SM, Leoj, ttbn etc have posted on the Bolt thread I fully expect they will be along very shortly calling for the proverbial "death penalty" on this. This is not a bit of glitter and shaving cream stuff, this is serious Constitutional stuff, which I am sure our very own Rumpole of the Bailey, Shadow Minister will be quick to point out. Constable Leo will claim there is clear CCTV pics of the three suspects, and demand VICPOL lay charges immediately, wanting to know if there is some kind of conspiracy going on between VICPOL and the Left Wing Fascists, progressives, Greens, feminists, Emily listeners,The Three Stooges, yep they are all in there on this, anyone whose name is not Pauline Hanson. ttbn and Hassu, plus a few others, will simply call for The Donald to be appointed PM, and runner will blame it all on those secular baby killers, Bazz will want all Muslim immigration stopped for the next 10,009 years to fix the problem, all in all it will most likely turn out just as you say. But the good forum folk I've mentioned above will not agree.

Dear Paul,

Your posts are always great to read.

Thank You.

I'll watch the "Insiders" tomorrow morning to see
what if anything Barrie Cassidy and his team have to
say about the comments of these three politicians.

It should be interesting.

cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

It just occurred to me after reading your post -
why do you think none of the "usual suspects"
have made a comment on SteeleRedux's discussion
about the Norwegian busker in Ireland?

Is it because they have nothing to complain
about on that thread - or attack?

It says a great deal about them wouldn't you say?

Wow Foxy, have you run out of reading material? You must have if you consider Paul's posts a good read.

I normally ignore his posts, but did read this one, after seeing your comment. How you could call that pile of hate filled vitriol good reading, I can't imagine.

I almost has to feel sorry for someone so bitter & twisted as this bloke, & I probably would if I did not find my self so disgusted by his hate.

Dear Hassie,

Come on you can't be serious.

I know that Paul was being facitious.

It was firmly tongue-in-cheek.

Did it strike a chord with you?

Dear Paul,

Did you happen to watch the "Insiders" this morning?

There were quite a few comments on the three ministers.
All of them agreeing that the men should have known
better. What happens next, I guess we'll have to wait
and see. I wonder if this will impact on the sentencing
of this terrorist? What a mess this has turned out to be.

I think it's a case of wanting to interfere, just like Abbott telling fair work to cut weekend penalty rates. Manipulation of the law, at arms length, does not apply to some.

Dear doog,

It is a bit of a worry though.

I believe that all three ministers are lawyers as
well so they really should have known better than
to comment on a case that's still pending.

Foxy,

Paul doesn't let reality interfere with his chicken little histrionics.

Given that punishments need to be proportionate, a senior judge would be very courageous to actually charge a sitting MP, triggering a constitutional crisis, for voicing valid concerns about the lax bail conditions for violent criminals. The risk for the judge would be if the charge was overturned in the high court on appeal his position on the bench would be untenable.

However, the judges are partially right in that they are bound within the lax bail laws set by the Andrew's labor government, and similarly the MP's should have been more careful.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I watched Barrie Cassidy questioning Barnaby Joyce
on the "Insiders" this morning asking for his opinion
on the matter. Mr Joyce refused to comment. He seemed
to also be of the same opinion - that being a Minister
one does not comment on cases that are pending.

There are also quite a few legal professionals voicing
that opinion on the web.

If the judges let this slide, they will be judged to be favoring one side of politics.
If these monkeys have done the wrong thing judges must be seen as upholding the law.

Just to be serious for once, if the issue is about courts handing down lenient parole periods, and parole boards being soft on parolees, is it possible that a form of bond or bailment or surety can be required to be entered into by judges and parole board members - that, if a parolee commits a crime while on parole, they surrender the surety ?

Just as someone has to go surety for a friend or relation who has been released on parole, why not the court or parole board approving the parole period ? Of course, the surety or bail due could be adjusted according to the offence committed while on parole.

I wonder if we might see a little tightening up on parole terms and conditions if that was done ?

Just trying to help :)

Joe

No, this particular incident is not about that at all

This particular incident is about a case that was still
pending. No judges decision had been made and the minsters'
comments had gone too far by suggesting the judges were
ideologically motivated. That's crossing the line.
That's suggesting bias with the judges.

Of course judges should rightly be subjected to public
criticism from politicians and their communities for their
decisions. But in this case no decisions had been made.
Therein lies the difference. The case was still pending.

MPs should exercise caution. The Parliament and Executive
at any level of government should be respectful of the
judiciary. They cannot possibly comment with any authority
on any decisions prior to being handed down by the
court. How could they. Unless you know or are aware of the
individual facts, how could they possibly comment with any
authority.

This episode should at the very least be a good lesson for
all involved.

Although I doubt if it will be. The ministers have had a
tax-payer funded lawyer appointed by Mr George Brandis on
their behalf who shall appear in court for them. The
ministers refuse to apologise for their comments - thus
indicating that nothing was learned from this episode.
As I stated in my earlier post - a rap on the knuckles
(if that) is all they'll get.

Now if these were Labor ministers - you'd hear the baying of the
hounds at their feet.

If the Turnbull government is to end it will not be because some ministers gave some slight criticism to some judges who need some really heavy criticism, but because the buffoon was caught making fun of the President of the only ally likely to help us in any sort of emergency.

Yes the fool has gone so far left that he is destroying our economy almost as quickly as the dreadful pair of KRudd & Gillard, but trying to destroy our only useful alliance is a sacking offence. If he survives this stupidity, the Liberal party won't.

" Education Minister Simon Birmingham came to his colleagues' aid, insisting they had not just a right but a duty to represent their constituents' views on issues of importance to the community."

That says it all really. Most know how ineffectual and out of touch most of our judges appear to be..on every single level

Unless Ministers know or are aware of the individual facts,
they cannot possibly comment with any authority on any
decision handed down by the court - and certainly not when
a case is pending and a decision has not even been made.

This episode should at the very least be a good lesson
for all involved.

Could not agree more Foxy, your comments are spot on. In their capacity as conservative politicians these three boofheads have passed comment on one particular trial before it finality, an act of sub judice, comments which also reflected on the impartiality of judges. It might just be grist for the mill as far as a bit of popularism is concerned. However the boofheads may well have known in advance what they were doing was wrong, and the possible ramifications of such action. Yet as a test of the judiciary's resolve they went ahead and acted in defiance. Now the courts must act, unlike these guys, with impartiality. Should be an interesting outcome.

Shadow, thanks for your unbiased Liberal opinions.

Hassy, I love you my little peach. you can always be relied upon for a bit of that earthy homespun comment, thanks once more.

Dear Paul,

What I am resenting is that there is no acceptance
of any responsibility for their actions. They
have refused to even apologise for their out of
place comments which you'd think is the least they
could do. And, the taxpayers are paying for their
legal defence. So how will they learn their lesson.

Dearest Foxy,

I suspect that the taxpayers will gladly pay for their outspokenness, improper or not, about the leniency of sentencing, in the vain hope that it is re-assessed: how many people have been killed now, because of it ? Oh yes, I forgot, one in the past week. Quite a few in Victoria this year alone.

Yes, it could go to the High Court. Interesting times.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You are probably correct. Many people for whatever
reasons will approve of the three Ministers' comments
about a case in which judgements are still pending.

However that does not make it right for Members of
Parliament to behave in this manner. Members of
Parliament are expected to exercise caution.
The Parliament and Executive at any level of government
is supposed to be respectful of the judiciary.

Of course judges are rightly subjected to public criticism
from politicians and their communities for their decisions.
But this case was still pending and no decision had been
made. The ministers comments had gone too far by suggesting
the judges were ideologically motivated.

That's crossing the line and suggesting bias with judges.

It should not have happened. There's a time and place
for everything. This was neither the time nor the place.

Is this an Appeal Court ?
Were the minister's comments made in relation to the sentences from
the lower court ?

Does the Speaker have a point to make ? In historical times the Speaker
had considerable power. Perhaps it falls to the Governor General.

Hi Foxy,

Perhaps the point is that the judges did NOT err in their sentencing - they applied the law as it stands. But it seems clear that the law is far too lenient, and maybe that's what those three federal MPs ere getting at- basically that the Victorian Parliament needs to strengthen the laws, it's not necessarily the fault of the judges at all. In fact, they may welcome changes, who knows ?

Just saying :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Not sure about that.

There's been strong condemnation from the nation's judges
and the legal profession.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-16/ministers-retract-some-comments-critical-of-victorian-judiciary/8625040

Foxy,

The reality is that sentences and bail conditions for similar violent crimes are consistently more lenient in Victoria than in NSW or other states. And with the violent crime rate soaring by about 25% in a couple of years, largely perpetrated by repeat offenders on bail there are legitimate questions with respect to the inclinations of the judges.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Yes but Members of Parliament should not accuse the judiciary of
going soft on terrorists while a terrorist case is pending.
The Judiciary must be free from political interference.
That is why the conduct of the MPs has been condemned as
"grossly improper and unfair," and has received very strong
condemnation from the nation's judges and legal profession.

The Supreme Court has ordered the three ministers to justify why
they should not "be referred for prosecution for contempt."

That's how serious this matter is.

I do not think that enemy combatants, terrorists, should be using the law
courts against our government. I think in a time of war, the courts should not
be able to override the elected government.

If the judges are going to let these people out on the street in a few years time, its my family and the family of every Australian, that these enemy combatants will strike at again.

If they are not loyal, they should forfeit their Australian citizenship and so should their families. These blokes will commit suicide in these attacks believing they can't be punished because they will be dead. But if we say to them. Alright, if you make the decision to hurt our families, your family will be hurt by deportation after you are dead.
That will have to make them think very hard about consequences.

They've done this in Israel to stop the attacks on civilians.
If the attacks start to happen too frequently here, public sentiment might be more inclined to allow this. But of course the law courts would be used to stop it.

Time to bring in the army in if it reaches that kind of a standoff.
The protection of civilians against the riights of terrorists.

Let's hope it doesn't esculate to this. The Australian people don't vote for these judges.
therefore they shouldn't have the right to override the government in matters of national security.

Ordinary criminal cases yes, but even then the government has had to step in to keep
repeat sex offenders behind bars when their sentence has expired, and rightly so.

People who are going to set bombs and run down people in public spaces need to be kept behind bars by intervention of the government too.

Foxy,

The function of the parliament is to create legislation and the function of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the laws dispassionately according to their best judgement and free from interference. However, that is assuming that the judges scrupulously avoid political or personal bias in applying the laws, and there are plenty of examples where this is clearly not the case.

The judges appointed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are a prime example. The law is clear that Australian visas can be cancelled immediately if the information in the application is false or the visa holder commits a crime, but some activist judges have reinstalled visas cancelled to Asylum seekers that faked their applications and to murderers, rapists, paedophiles, armed robbers and drug dealers.

My opinion is that the Victorian judges are being more than just a little precious, and wish to extend their guaranteed freedom from interference to a freedom from criticism.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I read an article in The Herald Sun yesterday that has
made me see things differently. Quite frankly I was shocked
by what I read.

The following is taken from that Herald Sun article (June
20th, 2017):

"Justice John Logan overturned ministerial decisions and ruled
in favour of the foreign-born convicted criminals in all 4 cases.
He recently made orders to release a sleazy taxi driver from
detention. Also made orders saving a paedophile, a drug trafficker,
and a sex offender from deportation."

"The full court of the Federal Court later agreed with the
original deportation decisions made by Immigration Ministers or
their delegates in 3 of the cases. It quashed Justice Logan's
decisions, which would have allowed the paedophile, the heroin
dealer, and the sex offender to stay in Australia."

"The 4th case, that of Melbourne sex creep - taxi driver
Jagdeep Singh is so recent that its not yet known if it will end
up in a Federal Court appeal. But the Herald Sun has been told
a delegate for Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has already
cancelled the bridging visa Justice Logan granted Singh last
Friday."

"Singh's visa was first cancelled in September last year after
he pleaded guilty to a sex attack on a female passenger. Justice
Logan was a Federal Court Judge at the time he over ruled
Ministerial decisions to kick the paedophile, the drug dealer,
and the sex offender out of Australia."

"He is now acting President of the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal and it was in that capacity he decided to grant Singh a
bridging visa and release him from detention. That visa would
have released Singh into the community if the delegate for
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton had not intervened."

Exactly.

And this idiot also has the power to convict on the basis of contempt of court.

In the midst of all this, I would like to acknowledge, the Imans who protected
the fellow who drove his car into the mosgue, I thought this was a great show of
Humanity in the face of extreme provocation, and it gave me hope that we can
become United as a society, that favours law and order over barbarity.

Well done and kudos to these Muslim leaders.

Dear CHERFUL,

Well said, and I totally agree.