Blogotariat

Oz Blog News Commentary

Considering a matter for prosecution

June 18, 2017 - 00:15 -- Admin

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) prosecutes counter-terrorism matters through the Organised Crime and Counter Terrorism Practice Group.The CDPP appeared for The Queen as head of the Commonwealth of Australia in the matter of an Australian-born 18 year-old charged with plotting a terrorist act in 2015.The young man plead guilty, was convicted of the offence in September 2016 and sentenced to ten years imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven and a half years.In October 2016 the Commonwealth of Australia appealed the length of his sentence.So by June 2017 the CDPP representing the Commonwealth of Australia was again in court presenting the argument for a longer sentence.Enter two Commonwealth ministers, the Minister for Health Greg Hunt and Minister for Human Services Alan Tudge who, along with Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar, proceeded to criticize the judge/s hearing this appeal in an article published in The Australian on 13 June 2017. Mr Hunt said "the state courts should not be places for ideological experiments in the face of global and local threats from Islamic extremism….".Mr Tudge was quoted as saying “Some of these judges are ­divorced from reality….We have a crisis on our hands with people who want to kill ­indiscriminately and yet some judges seem more concerned about the terrorists than the safety of the community.”Mr Sukkar opined “It’s the attitude of judges like these which has eroded any trust that remained in our legal system…Labor’s continued appointment of hard-left activist judges has come back to bite Victorians. Our judiciary should focus more on victims and the safety of our society, and less on the rights of terrorists who don’t respect our society, its laws or our people.”All these statements were made while the Commonwealth’s appeal was still before the Court.Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar very belatedly withdrew teir remarks but arrogantly refused to apologise for these comments when lawyers for thee three appeared in the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court in Melbourne on 16 June, to explain why they shouldn't be referred for prosecution for contempt.In criminal matters before Victorian courts "penalties for contempt usually consist of fines, imprisonment or both".In my humble opinion Messrs. Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar deserve to be referred and have the matter heard summarily by a judge as the alleged contempt was of a serious nature, freely made and unsolicitedly offered to a national newpaper for publication, committed in the course of an appeal of a judgment in a trial for serious criminal offences and, to date there has been no apology or public expression of contrition and full acceptance of the Court's authority.