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.