BishopAccountability.org

Should Derryn Hinch really be a senator?

By Greg Barns
Age
July 06, 2016

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/should-derryn-hinch-really-be-a-senator-20160706-gpzoas.html

Incoming senator Derryn Hinch has been to jail twice and fined $100,000 for breaching court orders.
Photo by Scott Barbour

One of the outcomes of Saturday's federal election is that Victorians now have as one of their 12 representatives in the Senate a man who has over the past 30 years been to jail twice and fined $100,000 for breaching court orders, and who has been roundly criticised by the High Court for undermining the right of an accused person to a fair trial. We are talking about broadcaster Derryn Hinch.

While Hinch is not disqualified under the constitution from being a candidate for the Senate because he is not serving or waiting to serve a sentence for an offence under Commonwealth or state law punishable by a prison sentence of 12 months or more, the broader question is whether a person with Hinch's record is fit to hold the office of a legislator whose role is to ensure that laws are enforceable and that the rule of law is upheld?

It is worth providing a brief outline of Hinch's offending record. In 1986 Hinch was jailed for 15 days and fined $15,000 by the Supreme Court of Victoria for contempt of court. Hinch had used his 3AW program to publish the prior conviction of Michael Glennon, a former Catholic priest, who was facing sexual assault allegations. Hinch campaigned against Glennon on his radio program. In 1992 the High Court said of Hinch's conduct in Glennon's case: "Clearly, the three broadcasts on a popular Melbourne station, in a context where specific reference was made to the pending criminal proceedings against Glennon in a Melbourne court, constituted one of the most serious cases of contempt of court, involving the public prejudgment of the guilt of a person awaiting trial, to have come before the courts of this country."

In 1992 Hinch was charged again, this time for revealing on Channel Ten the name of a child victim in a sex abuse case. And in 2011 Hinch was sentenced to five months' home detention after he defied court orders and named two sex offenders at a rally in 2008. Then in 2013 the Supreme Court of Victoria again dealt with Hinch for breaches of court orders, this time concerning Adrian Bayley, subsequently convicted of the murder of ABC journalist Jill Meagher. Hinch had revealed highly prejudicial information about Bayley before Bayley pleaded guilty. On this occasion Hinch apologised but the sincerity of this apology was undermined by his telling the media he was a scapegoat and a whipping boy. The court fined Hinch $100,000. He refused to pay it and went to jail for 50 days.

No doubt some people will say that Hinch is a brave campaigner for the victims of sexual abuse and he should be applauded for naming and shaming persons charged with or convicted of child sex offences. Such praise is misguided. What Hinch has done is undermine one of the essential elements of a democracy, the right to a fair trial. And he has also been prepared to shred the rule of law by snubbing his nose at court orders because he believes his cause is more important than the law. Most importantly Hinch is unrepentant and even proud of his runs in with the legal system. Hinch's own website proclaims: "His convictions – some for contempt and breaching suppression orders – have all stemmed from a belief in the journalistic creed: the public's right to know."

Hinch's record of defiance of the law and his preparedness to undermine fundamental rights such as the right to a fair trial makes it incongruous that he might now be a legislator. The role of a legislator in our system of government is to ensure that our community is law abiding and in ensuring that the rule of law is being upheld by the executive government. It does the first by passing laws and the second by scrutinising the actions of government. It is difficult to say how Hinch could seriously criticise or scrutinise actions by the executive government which undermine basic freedoms given his track record. It is also hypocritical of him to fulminate from the Senate about the need to impose sanctions in legislation so that citizens obey the law when he has been prepared to flout the law for the purposes of his personal crusade.

Simply because a person has a criminal record or has breached court orders in the past should not of itself disqualify them from being elected to Parliament. But where they have a long track record of defying the law and appear unrepentant about it, as is the case with Derryn Hinch, then whether they should be allowed to fulfil a role that requires a commitment to the rule of law is a live one.

 




.


Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.