Pauline Hanson after her release. Photo: Andy Zakeli

The legal system has fought back big time via the Hanson judgement, slamming Howard, Carr and others for cynicism and disregard for the rule of law. Before the extract from Justice McMurdo’s judgment, Pauline Hanson gave a short, emotional, and extremely interesting press conference just televised on the 7.30 Report.

“I’ve learnt from this experience and I’m a little bit wiser for it.”

The system had failed her, she said, and it had also failed “the women behind the bars there”.

Did she get a hard time in jail? “No.”

“The system’s let me down like it’s let a lot of people down… because of money, power and position.”

Had the experience changed her opinion about jails? “Yes.”

How? “I just want to say that I’ve learnt from it.”

***

EXTRACT FROM JUSTICE MARGARET McMURDO

The appellants were convicted and sentenced on 20 August this year. It is common knowledge that convictions and sentences are subject to a lawful appeal process. The appellant Hanson appealed against her conviction on 26 August 2003 and applied for leave to appeal against her sentence on 27 August 2003; the appellant Ettridge filed his notice of appeal against conviction and his application for leave to appeal against sentence on 1 September 2003. The appellants’ conviction and sentence attracted a deal of media attention and public interest. Senior members of the legislature, many of whom were trained lawyers, were reported in the media as making inappropriate comments about this case.

The Prime Minister is quoted as saying: “on the face of it, it does seem a very long, unconditional sentence for what she is alleged to have done” (Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August 2003; The Age, 26 August 2003; The Australian, 26 August 2003).

Former Federal Minister and now senior backbencher, Ms Bronwyn Bishop, was reported as likening the prosecution of this matter to something one would expect in Zimbabwe under the regime of the tyrant, Robert Mugabe:

“It’s gone beyond just political argy-bargy of political opponents I’ve been very critical of her and her party, but this is something that is above and beyond that political argument – this is someone who has been sent to jail because she spoke her views and that is not acceptable in this country. Very simply, for the first time in Australia, we now have a political prisoner and I find that totally unacceptable in a country where freedom of speech and freedom to act as a political individual is sacrosanct.” (The Courier-Mail, 26 August 2003; Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August 2003; The Australian, 26 August 2003.)

The New South Wales Premier was reported as saying that the sentence seemed excessive because it was “almost a crime without a victim” (The Australian, 22 August 2003).

Western Australian One Nation MP, Frank Hough, was reported as saying that Hanson had been “hounded into prison. All she’s guilty of is naivety and inexperience.” (The Courier-Mail, 21 August 2003.)

The Queensland One Nation leader, Bill Flynn, was reported as saying that he believed there had been “considerable political pressures” behind the case (The Courier-Mail, 21 August 2003).

As far as I have been able to ascertain, there has been no retraction of any of these comments. If these observations were accurately reported, they are concerning. They demonstrate, at the least, a lack of understanding of the Rule of Law, the principle that every person and organisation is subject to the same laws and punishment and not to the arbitrary wishes of individuals or the passing whim of the day. Such statements from legislators could reasonably be seen as an attempt to influence the judicial appellate process and to interfere with the independence of the judiciary for cynical political motives.

Fortunately, many legislators asked to comment on the case responded with appropriate restraint. For example, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, pointed out that Hanson’s sentence “was a legal decision, not politically driven” (The Courier-Mail, 22 August 2003, p 5; The Australian, 22 August 2003, p 2) and the Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Treasurer noted that “the matter was one for the courts”. (The Age, 23 August 2003; Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August 2003.)

A failure by legislators to act with similar restraint in the future, whether out of carelessness or for cynical short-term political gain, will only undermine confidence in the judiciary and consequentially the democratic government of this State and nation.