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