The treatment of Terry Griffiths has stirred up a lot of commentary couched in terms of McCarthyism, witch-hunt, no natural justice, convicted with out trial, untested evidence, no independent judge, feminists taking over the world, and where will it all end?
Civil libertarians, lawyers, fellow MPs and others have taken the view that Griffiths has been “”convicted” and “”punished” on “”untested” evidence.
The theory is that before you can be punished you must have a chance to know the case against you, have a chance to meet it, have a chance to test the evidence and have a chance to put your own evidence These and other requirements are referred to by lawyers as the rules of natural justice.
But there has been some muddled thinking here.
Griffiths was not being tried for a crime, so there was no need for the rules of natural justice, and certainly no need for the more stringent requirements of the procedures of criminal law.
Worthy as the rules of natural justice and criminal procedure are, they are simply inappropriate in the Griffiths case
What was at stake here? Only Griffiths’s endorsement as a Liberal candidate and membership of the Liberal Party Not even his job as an MP was at stake Some examples will illustrate the point Two red-headed people arrive on my doorstep with raffle books in hand I say: “”I don’t like red-headed people Goodbye Click” No hearing No statement of the case against them No chance for them to give evidence Tut Tut.
Several people form a card club and play at one another’s homes One does not smoke told: “”Sorry We don’t like non-smokers Goodbye”.
A jockey (or footballer) is suspended from the jockey club for four weeks without a hearing This is different The jockey’s membership is needed to make a living The law requires that he be dealt with fairly, that he can know the charge and state his case If not, the court will move to overturn the suspension The law probably does not require that he have the right to be represented or even be allowed to cross-examine witnesses The law would probably allow confessional and hearsay evidence to be heard.
A government administrative body revokes a broadcasting licence Here the procedure required is stricter Rights of representation and cross-examination are usually required.
A man is charged with murder The law requires that very strict procedures be adhered to.
The simple point is that the law matches what is at stake with the nature of the procedure, and membership of the Liberal Party or Liberal endorsement as a candidate is not a very high stake.
The Premier can hire and fire ministers at a whim He certainly has the right to seek removal from the party of a man suspected of being a sexual harasser; even if in fact it turns out later that he is not one He could seek disendorsement of someone on the grounds that he suspects he or she is fool, immodest, vain or deceitful.
Indeed, the semi-independent investigation was a luxury in the circumstances, even if it was behind closed doors and the evidence untested If, how ever, this procedure had been used to convict Griffiths of a crime and throw him in jail, it would have been an outrage.
You can make judgments about the fitness of other people to be in your political party, home or private club without recourse to a lot of lawyers and natural justice.
The only legal right at stake here is the right of Mr Griffiths to remain an MP and to stand at the next election, and these are not affected; he just cannot do those things under the Liberal banner.
He has been convicted of nothing and is not subject to a court penalty, so to argue that court-of-law procedures should have applied to his case before the Liberals threw him out is fallacious.
As for the publicity that has surrounded his case and the use of parliamentary privilege to denounce him, that goes with the territory of standing for public office.