Kiama MP Gareth Ward has lost a Supreme Court battle against NSW Parliament. Photo: Facebook.
Not only has convicted rapist and Kiama MP Gareth Ward failed in his Supreme Court bid to prevent the NSW Parliament from moving to expel him, he’ll also have to pay its court costs.
Chief Justice Andrew Bell, Justice Anna Mitchelmore and Justice Jeremy Kirk handed down their judgement on Thursday evening (7 August), lifting an injunction filed by Ward’s legal team earlier in the week that prevented the parliament from putting the motion.
Ward’s representation, barrister Peter King, argued conviction for a crime was not behaviour.
Mr King attempted on Ward’s behalf to secure an injunction that would prevent the NSW Parliament from expelling Ward until after his sentence or after he had exhausted the appeals process.
Mr King based his argument that Ward’s expulsion from the parliament would be unlawful on a series of claims.
Mr King argued that although Ward was convicted of four serious offences, convictions were not behaviour, and further that convictions in a court of law couldn’t be evidence of behaviour.
He also argued that due to his incarceration Ward would not be able to exercise his usual entitlement to speak in his own defence against the expulsion in parliament.
Mr King claimed that if Ward was expelled from NSW Parliament, expulsion would be punitive in nature, as it would “trash” Ward’s future political career, and this punishment would usurp the court’s power to punish Ward through the imposition of a sentence.
“A conviction is not behaviour, a conviction is a fact,” Mr King told the court.
“My client is in custody and unable to be present, yet they are proceeding in his absence, despite his entitlement to give a speech in response to the speeches put against.
“He is to be expelled via a kangaroo court … where numbers override individual rights.
“If Mr Ward is expelled from the parliament, excluded from standing for office, and suffers the other penalties and want of due process, it is usurping the court to an extent in that process.
“He would be punished by loss of his seat, which he achieved in 2023 even though people of his electorate knew he was charged with the offences which became the subject of conviction.”
The arguments seemed to cut little ice with Chief Justice Bell, who said if that was the case the parliament would never be able to exercise its power to expel a member.
Barrister Craig Lenehan for MP Mr Ron Hoenig said the expulsion had nothing to do with punishment, and was the only way the parliament could protect itself from being brought into disrepute.
He said Ward would have the opportunity to defend himself by written submission, and it was inconsistent with democracy to have a member receive a parliamentary salary while in jail and unable to fulfil their parliamentary duties.
Mr Lenehan also argued the initial injunction was filed in a misleading manner that left his client without representation at the first hearing.
The justices dismissed the injunction and ruled the NSW Parliament could go ahead with the motion to expel Ward, and that Ward must pay its court costs.
Original Article published by Zoe Cartwright on Region Illawarra.
Demonstrations & protests be they right or wrong are I believe an Australian right of passage but… View