Save Search
    Prev (12)   Next (14)   Return to results listPrint ListEmail Document Link

Title

Ch18 Parliamentary committees / CONDUCT OF INQUIRIES / Sub judice convention

Database

House Practice

Date

01-05-2005

Source

House of Reps

Parl No.

41

Chapter

Parliamentary committees

Chapter No.

Chapter 18

Page

667

Section No.

 

System Id

procedural/practcer/chapter18.66.doc


Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Ch18 Parliamentary committees / CONDUCT OF INQUIRIES / Sub judice convention



Download WordDownload Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 18                                                 p 667

 

Parliamentary committees / CONDUCT OF INQUIRIES

 

Sub judice convention

In the case of a matter awaiting or under adjudication in a court of law the House imposes a restriction upon itself to avoid setting itself up as an alternative forum to the courts and to ensure that its proceedings are not permitted to interfere with the course of justice. This restriction is known as the sub judice convention and is described more fully in the Chapter on ‘Control and conduct of debate’.

Committees are bound by the convention. The chair of a committee, like the Speaker, may exercise discretion as to whether the convention should apply in a given situation, but the chair must have regard to the principles followed by the Speaker in the House and to the option open to a committee to take evidence in private, an option which is not open to the House in any practical sense.

If a chair decides the sub judice convention should apply to evidence being given, he or she may direct that the line of questioning and evidence be discontinued or that the evidence be taken in private. A chair would normally wish to consult committee members on such a matter. It would also be open to any other member to initiate a resolution of the committee to order visitors to leave. 1

If the evidence is taken in private and it subsequently becomes clear that it does not warrant the application of the sub judice convention, the committee can authorise publication. Equally, a committee may publish such evidence once the possibility of its publication interfering with the course of justice has passed.

In 1975 a witness before a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation sought to give evidence relating to the circumstances of a legal action against him in the High Court. The evidence was taken in private. 2 In the 37th Parliament the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure conducted an inquiry into aviation safety. At the time of the inquiry a coronial inquest was taking place into one aircraft accident and a judicial inquiry was being conducted into another. Having regard to the sub judice convention, the committee agreed to a resolution that it should take no evidence on either matter unless the resolution was rescinded, and it completed the inquiry without changing this decision. 3 In 2000 care was taken to try to ensure, by taking evidence in private, that a committee inquiry concerning military justice did not cause any interference with actions being taken within the Defence Forces. 4



S.O. 240.



A Senate committee in 1973 decided not to take evidence from a witness in similar circumstances, see Odgers , 6th edn, p. 361.



PP 480 (1995) 5.



H.R. Deb. (9.11.2000) 22635-6.