Will the Victorian judiciary apologise?

Remember earlier in the year?

Three Turnbull government ministers yesterday withdrew their most contentious criticisms of the Victorian judiciary’s handling of terrorism sentences but refused to apologise to the Court of Appeal, leaving open the threat of contempt charges.

Ministers Greg Hunt, Michael Sukkar and Alan Tudge retracted their accusations against the ­judiciary, signalling regret after this week dismissing Victorian judges as handing down light sentences on terror as part of “ideological experiments’’.

It turned out that three ministers of the Crown – duly elected members of the Parliament – were forced to apologise to the Victorian judiciary. But now the High Court has ruled:

Terrorists, rapists, pedophiles and other criminals in Victoria have been handed overly lenient sentences because some of the state’s judges have been incorrectly interpreting the law, a landmark High Court decision has revealed.

The High Court has this morning unanimously ruled that a five-and-a-half-year maximum prison sentence handed to a man who sexually abused his de facto partner’s two daughters was “manifestly inadequate” and should have been corrected by the Victorian Court of Appeal.

Is that the same Victorian Court of Appeal that got criticised by MPs? Apparently so.  If the Turnbull government had any backbone whatsoever it would arrange for several Dorothy Dixers in Question Time to raise this very issue.

This entry was posted in Politics, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Will the Victorian judiciary apologise?

  1. Gab

    Well spotted. However, Turnbull and his sycophants won’t do a dammed thing about it.

  2. Gab

    And the spineless three should never have apologised in the first place.

  3. curious george

    Terrorists, rapists, pedophiles and other criminals in Victoria have been handed overly lenient sentences because some of the state’s judges have been incorrectly interpreting the law, a landmark High Court decision has revealed.

    Well they would say that wouldn’t they?

  4. jupes

    If the Turnbull government had any backbone whatsoever …

    If the Turnbull government had a clue how to govern …

    If the Turnbull government gave a stuff about the national interest …

    If the Turnbull government had any principles …

    He’s your man Sinc. Own it.

  5. C.L.

    In other words, if the negligent and incompetent judges of the wacko left-wing Victorian judiciary had attempted to prosecute the three ministers, they would have won in the High Court.

  6. Dr Fred Lenin

    Comrade Hulls ,the Bracks commisar fpr peoples decromatic justice ,stacked the judiciary with comrades from “ liberty Victoria” a branch of the u.n. Communist party ,part of agenda 21 . Maybe one day we will have a real liberal government in Victoria ,one that is not infested with leftoids that will reverse the situation ,and get rid of the comrades mreplacing them with no political real judges ,who are interested in justice ,not leftist politics .

  7. A backbone? A jellyfish would have more chance of having a backbone than Turnbull and his sycophants.

  8. cohenite

    If the Turnbull government had any backbone whatsoever

    Hahahaha…ah fuck.

  9. Gengis

    Just thinkin, all those who rant and rave about spineless Turnbull & Ministers. You must be going to vote for Shorten (Mr. – just joking) and once he is elected then you will have something to seriously complain about. What is coming to light about ‘our Dear Julia’ and the ‘Workplace Reform Association begars belief.

  10. Mak Siccar

    Well spotted Prof Sinc. Being a conservative Queenslander now living in a strong Labor seat in Victoriastan, I am immensely frustrated at the blatant political corruption that seems to be accepted by the majority of the residents here. Email your suggestion about a Dorothy to one of those MP’s and see if they have the gonads to follow it through.

  11. John Constantine

    Why apologise for War Crimes, when the judges prole enemies are, like, literally Nazis.

  12. wal1957

    The ministers should have never apologized. A fact is a fact is a fact.
    This whole parliament is being manned by pansies!

    OOOPSSy! Am I allowed to write pansies? Uhoh…
    How about manned? should I have written “manned or womaned by…”, or perhaps I should have played it safe by saying “personed by…”?
    SHIT, Shit, that’s no good either! what if he, she or other identify as….?

    Stuff it, I’ve given up. F*@k the lot of the miserable, cowardly, useless, overpaid, underperforming, backstabbing rentseekers!

    Yep, that’s fixed it!

  13. Damienski

    If the Turnbull government had any backbone whatsoever

    There’s your problem, right there.

  14. Rabz

    the state’s judges have been incorrectly interpreting the law

    Sorry, but this just simply isn’t good enough.

    The vast bulk of voters expect these pompous parasitic preposterous waffling windbags to correctly apply the law, not “incorrectly interpret” it.

    Manifest failure and in a just world would be grounds for terminating their comfy sinecures – gifted corruptly to them by their equally noxious layba maaaaates.

    Activist judges my arse. Incompetent arrogant imbeciles who assume their preening narcissism should trump the public interest.

    They are an absolute disgrace.

  15. Dr Fred Lenin

    If the ieleniently treated criminals re offend the leftist “judges” and defence councel should be sued for huge compensation to the victims of the atrocity committed . That would put some real justice into the system , . if the lawtrade had to pay for its corrupt behaviour they would reconsider their attitudes . If there is one thing the lawtrade persons hate. It is poverty ,theirs in oarticular .

  16. Robbo

    Judges and magistrates in Victoria have had their priorities badly askew for decades. They do not seem to have at the top of their list the role of protecting the law abiding community from the behaviour of criminals who appear before them for sentencing. Sentencing offenders, particularly violent offenders, should have two major objectives. First is punishing the offender for the offence, and that punishment needs to meet the standards that are the reasonable expectations of the community because judges and magistrates are the representatives of the community. The second objective should be to protect the community from further crimes by the offender. That second objective should not be seen as a difficult task because a sensible person will be able to separate the possibilities of reoffending by looking at the criminal records of an offender. Why is it that a good number of judges have failed that responsibility? Why is it that a good number of judges seem far more interested in the welfare of the offender, and not all that interested or concerned about the welfare of the victims and the trauma that they will possibly endure for the rest of their lives?
    Appointing judges to serve until they reach the retiring age of 75 or thereabouts is counterproductive in far too many instances. The appointment appears to come with a big dose of arrogance and when there is no limit on the term of their appointment other than old age it is no wonder that judges become separated from the expectations of the communities they are supposed to be representing. It would be vigorously resisted by the legal profession but what acceptable argument can be mounted against limiting the appointment of judges for seven year terms with reappointment a possibility if they have shown they are performing satisfactorily?
    I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing judges treated as untouchable. They need to be dragged down from on high and have their feet firmly planted back on the ground occupied the community.

  17. sabena

    The story has a new dimension with the publication of this story in the Australian this morning:-
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/top-judge-dpp-in-row-over-crime-sentencing/news-story/2767b02ec0755316550c085b4e3f78e6
    In my view it is completely inappropriate for there to be any communications with the prosecution once judgment has been delivered.Further,there is no mention of whether the communication was to the prosecution alone-if it was,that adds to the misconduct.

  18. entropy

    Gengis
    #2520499, posted on October 11, 2017 at 4:32 pm
    Just thinkin, all those who rant and rave about spineless Turnbull & Ministers. You must be going to vote for Shorten (Mr. – just joking) and once he is elected then you will have something to seriously complain about. What is coming to light about ‘our Dear Julia’ and the ‘Workplace Reform Association begars belief.

    At least we would be buying what is on the label.

  19. stackja

    entropy
    #2521016, posted on October 12, 2017 at 7:49 am
    Gengis
    #2520499, posted on October 11, 2017 at 4:32 pm
    Just thinkin, all those who rant and rave about spineless Turnbull & Ministers. You must be going to vote for Shorten (Mr. – just joking) and once he is elected then you will have something to seriously complain about. What is coming to light about ‘our Dear Julia’ and the ‘Workplace Reform Association begars belief.

    At least we would be buying what is on the label.

    Holding nose when cap taken off the container?

  20. Up The Workers!

    A.L.P. – Always Lenient to Perpetrators!

    That’s one of the “perks of office” you get when your particular organized crime racket is in a position to nominate its own “little maaates” as Judges, Magistrates, Bail Injustices, D.P.P.’s, D.P.P. Solicitors, Chief Police Commissioners and Adrian Bailey Recreational Facilitators.

    When that happens, you can demonstrably get away with forgery, perjury, theft, fraud, facilitation of illegal immigration, child molestation, rape, theft of Parliamentary allowances, taxpayer-funded travel and whale-watching “study tours”, thieving millions in Union-members’ cash without ever having to pay restitution, brothel-hopping all up and down the Eastern seaboard, blatantly lying in Federal Parliament, repeated visits to Marrickville “rub-and-tuggery’ establishments, drug-dealing and even murder – if you are part of the right ‘politically approved’ Party family.

  21. notaluvvie

    I fall about laughing at the thought of the silk stocking and wig set (and that’s only the males) apologising.

  22. Suburban Boy

    sabena (above) has hit on the most important point of the story in the Oz today.

    The letter from Chief Justice Warren to the DPP contained a veiled threat that arguably could constitute a contempt of the High Court, as the DPP was at that time a litigant before that court.

    So to the amply-justified claims against Warren of bullying the three Ministers we can now add the charge of monstrous hypocrisy.

  23. So to the amply-justified claims against Warren of bullying the three Ministers we can now add the charge of monstrous hypocrisy.

    So who appears to have egg all over the face now??? A very good argument for appointments not exceeding 5 years so political appointments and out of touch incompetents can be sorted before too much damage is carried out.

Comments are closed.