Page 2192 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Corbell: The reason for that is that Mrs Dunne is referring to the previous criminal history of an individual who is currently facing serious charges before the courts. I simply do not believe it is appropriate for members of this place to ventilate matters such as the previous criminal history of a person that is currently before the courts on other criminal charges. I think it is not appropriate and I would ask that you consider the matter and give some guidance to the Assembly on how this matter should be addressed, because I would not in any way want there to be a suggestion that there is some prejudice towards the conduct of the matters that are currently before the court.
MRS DUNNE: Could I draw your attention to the clock.?
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Stop the clock, please.
Mr Seselja: On the point of order raised by Mr Corbell, Mrs Dunne has been very careful not to discuss the individual case that may come before the courts. She is talking about things that are on the public record and she is not even going to any of the detail of the incident. She is talking about the application in previous years of bail and what has gone on the public record. So it is impossible to argue that talking about things that are on the public record, not discussing the detail of this case, is in some way prejudicial or is excluded under the sub judice rule.
The sub judice rule is not a wide-ranging gag order against politicians being able to speak about matters. It is about prejudice in particular cases and even the rules around that are strict. Mrs Dunne has been very careful to stay away from any of those details. She has not once mentioned them and it would be an extraordinary widening of the sub judice principle if we were not, at any stage, able to talk about matters that have been on the public record and that are not currently before the courts.
Mr Corbell: On the point of order, the rule in the Assembly is very clear: members are not permitted to discuss matters that are currently live before the courts. It is not the general application under House of Representatives Practice. It is a standing resolution of the Assembly where the Assembly itself has determined what matters are and are not open to members to discuss.
Mrs Dunne is referring to the previous criminal history of an individual who is currently facing further and serious criminal charges in the ACT Magistrates Court, and that is directly relevant to the court’s consideration of those matters. I cannot think of an instance previously where a member has risen in this place and directly referred to the past criminal history of a person that is currently facing other charges which are a live matter before the courts. If the sub judice rule does not apply here, I find it difficult to understand in what circumstances it does apply.
MRS DUNNE: On the point of order, when I began speaking I quoted “on 14 November 2008”. This is a direct quote from a published judgement of the ACT Supreme Court. This is on the public record. I can give you the URL for it if you like, Madam Deputy Speaker. And it seems unreasonable that any judgement in relation to sub judice would prevent a member of this place, in discussing the state of the bail
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video