Ministers apologise for saying judges were soft on terrorists - Polidicks

[quote]Three ministers have avoided charges after apologising for comments about "weak" terrorism sentencing in Victoria, as the state's appeals court increased the jail terms given to two would-be terrorists. The Victorian Court of Appeal ruled it would not proceed with contempt of court charges against Human Services Minister Alan Tudge, Health Minister Greg Hunt and Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar after it heard their apology. The three men did not appear, but Commonwealth Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue told the court each apologised "unreservedly" for the comments, published in The Australian newspaper. "We offer that apology now," Dr Donaghue told the court on behalf of the ministers. "We never intended to influence the court.[/quote] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-23/ministers-apologise-to-court-for-criticising-terror-sentencing/8645026[/url] Seriously? The Ministers are pathetic for apologising and the judges need to be sacked. It ridiculous how lenient we have been with terrorists.

They are fucking soft on terrorists. Criminals in general. Let some cunt who planned to bomb a military base out on parole and then what does he do? He murders someone, takes a hostage, and has a shoot out with the police, wounding a bunch of them. Crims in Victoria have been allowed out on bail way too much, the cunt that ran over a bunch of people on Burke Street in the CBD was out on bail after being arrested for a violent offense. It's disgusting.

What charges? Judges ARE soft when it comes to terrorism and criminals. You're telling me that a [URL="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-26/teenager-gets-probation-eight-women-groped-surfers-paradise/8472758"]17-year-old[/URL] kid from Afghanistan who sexually assaulted some women at a Gold Coast beach and sentenced to 2 years probation is NOT soft? Not only are they soft but they also let the wrong people out on bail. I'm sorry but if someone has had prior offences and there's prima facie for the current case then they should not be out on bail, they should be held in remand awaiting their trial. And the judges are never held accountable.

are you guys all bloody joking, do you seriously not know how our politics works They were almost charged with contempt of court because they were federal politicians attempting to influence a state court. That's a flagrant abuse of our separation of powers It literally doesn't matter whether judges are soft on terrorism in Victoria not. That's for the state bodies to comment on, not Federal ministers in a current federal government. Its entirely appropriate that they apologise and it was right for the judges to threaten the charges

[QUOTE=killerteacup;52392833]are you guys all bloody joking, do you seriously not know how our politics works They were almost charged with contempt of court because they were federal politicians attempting to influence a state court. That's a flagrant abuse of our separation of powers It literally doesn't matter whether judges are soft on terrorism in Victoria not. That's for the state bodies to comment on, not Federal ministers in a current federal government. Its entirely appropriate that they apologise and it was right for the judges to threaten the charges[/QUOTE] Shit. I almost forgot about the separation of powers. [editline]23rd June 2017[/editline] Still true though, they are very lenient sometimes.

[QUOTE=ChronoBlade;52392838]Shit. I almost forgot about the separation of powers. [editline]23rd June 2017[/editline] Still true though, they are very lenient sometimes.[/QUOTE] That's a matter of opinion - which is exactly why the separation of powers exist, so the law can be practiced properly without being influenced by the ideals of any one group of people. And it would be very convenient for extremists for us to be so fearful of them that we decide to give away one of the best things western democracy has to offer, which is a relatively politically free and fair justice system. Just going to point out to download that suggesting the judges be sacked completely flies in the face of what secures our democracy.

[QUOTE=download;52392236][url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-23/ministers-apologise-to-court-for-criticising-terror-sentencing/8645026[/url] Seriously? The Ministers are pathetic for apologising and the judges need to be sacked. It ridiculous how lenient we have been with terrorists.[/QUOTE] So are we going to sack a judge everytime people disagree with a sentence? Do you at least have a basic understanding of how judicial independence work?

[QUOTE=Chaitin;52393220]So are we going to sack a judge everytime people disagree with a sentence? Do you at least have a basic understanding of how judicial independence work?[/QUOTE] Judges have been pretty consistent in giving slaps on the wrists for terrorism and other serious crimes. This isn't a one off.

[QUOTE=Chaitin;52393220]So are we going to sack a judge everytime people disagree with a sentence? Do you at least have a basic understanding of how judicial independence work?[/QUOTE] I'm just gonna assume that you're not from Victoria and don't know what is going on here in regards to judge sentences.

Judges are supposed to deliver sentence within the legal boundary prescribed by the legislative branch. If people are not content with the sentence, then why don't they appeal to their legislative assembly and change sentencing law? In some countries like Canada, parliament has adopted minimal sentence for certain serious crimes and it work fine.

[QUOTE=download;52393228]Judges have been pretty consistent in giving slaps on the wrists for terrorism and other serious crimes. This isn't a one off.[/QUOTE] I have never seen such a blatant attempt to push an agenda from you. Haven't you got any shame? Nevermind that you don't seem to want to admit to having forgotten about judicial independence, you also don't specify which judges you want sacked. You don't even seem to be in possession of any facts about what happened here, just some weird emotional response and prejudice against the judiciary.. A case of two suspected terrorists is currently before the Victorian courts. The prosecutor is pushing for harsher sentences and the Chief Justice noted during the trial that NSW has harsher sentencing than Victoria for crimes like these. In direct response to these comments, which are comments made during an open case, three federal ministers accused the Victorian courts of conducting ideological experiments and said there needed to be harsher sentencing in a newspaper. The reason they were going to be tried for contempt of court is because now the Chief Justice has noted that their comments give the defence a solid basis for taking this case to the High Court because any attempt to sentence the defendants more harshly can no longer be trusted as having been an independent decision. So if you were really that up in arms about lenient sentencing of terrorism suspects, and knew what you were talking about, you'd be livid at these ministers for making these comments, because they jeopardised an opportunity to apply harsher sentencing for terrorism suspects. Instead, you're angry at the courts. I don't understand how you can rationally justify that by posting this story. [editline]24th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Chaitin;52393355]Judges are supposed to deliver sentence within the legal boundary prescribed by the legislative branch. If people are not content with the sentence, then why don't they appeal to their legislative assembly and change sentencing law? In some countries like Canada, parliament has adopted minimal sentence for certain serious crimes and it work fine.[/QUOTE] Minimum sentencing laws is to my knowledge a state matter in Australia and not federal. So it's not a problem for the courts, but the state govt, unless they're being tried by the federal court. In this case it was federal ministers making public advisements in relation to a case that is currently before a state court. If you are worried about lenient sentencing then there is a case to be made for minimum sentencing, but it doesn't justify the ministers actions and it doesn't justify saying "judges" should be sacked, whichever judges he is referring to