White feels sting of judicial contempt

Written by Rob Inder-Smith on January 10, 2006 but was not published until January 21. We apologise for the delay in getting this published - NAPNT Web Team

The Northern Territory’s Chief Justice Brian Martin has refused to accept an 11th-hour legal argument by the “sixth Parliament Invader”, Scott White.

As well, Justice Martin refused to explain his decision, dismissing Mr White’s submission in the NT Supreme Court earlier today as “having no substance”.

The submission consisted of two previously untendered documents and included comments made by Queensland Premier Peter Beattie that question the validity of the law under which Mr White was charged.

Mr Martin said: “(This document) has no validity whatsoever . . . it is without substance.”

Asked why by Mr White, Justice Martin said: “I don’t propose to give any further reasons . . . it is ruled invalid.”

Mr Martin’s blasé dismissal of Mr White’s new argument flies in the face of Premier Beattie’s comments, made in December, in which he questioned the validity of an identical law on the Queensland statutes – Sections 56 and 57 of the Criminal Code.

Like the NT’s Section 61, it carries a three-year jail term.

Mr Beattie described the law as “ambiguous”, saying it “should be amended” and that it was not applicable to political actions.

The equivalent NT law, Section 61, was used to charge Mr White and eight others following a dramatic protest in the NT Legislative Assembly in May, 2002, in which a total of 10 people walked into the NT parliament, disrupting it for five minutes.

Soon after, Mr White moved to Tasmania with his young family, and nine protestors were charged under S61, “intentionally disturbing the Legislative Assembly while it is in session”.

They were dealt with in protracted Magistrate’s Court hearings and various plea bargains, five - Michael Lambe, Robert Inder-Smith, Gary Meyerhoff, Stuart Highway and Ema Birkeland Corro – were handed partly suspended jail terms.

They are free on bail pending Full Bench appeals.

Mr White elected to have his case heard in the Supreme Court, and pleaded guilty when Justice Martin failed to acknowledge his submission.

Justice Martin’s actions typify the judicial contempt that has been the hallmark of the handling of the marathon case ever since it began in Darwin Magistrate’s Court in late 2002.

Mr White will re-appear before Justice Martin on Thursday morning where, because he has pleaded guilty, he is expected to be represented by an NT Legal Aid lawyer before being sentenced.

The protest, dubbed by the local press, the “Parliament invasion”, was organised by the controversial Darwin drug law-reform group, the Network Against Prohibition, which was protesting the Labor Party’s newly legislated and widely discredited “Drug house” legislation.