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.