Those convicted of contempt of court face fines and potential jail terms. Mr Sukkar told The Australian newspaper the judiciary should focus more on victims and less on terrorists' rights, while Mr Tudge said some judges were "divorced from reality". In the Supreme Court on Friday, Victoria's Chief Justice, Marilyn Warren, said the three ministers should be held to account in the "strongest terms", but their comments would not sway the court. "The public should understand this is not the end of the matter," she said. The ministers were not required to front the court.

Mr Donaghue initially told the court, on behalf of the ministers, that none of them would retract their comments. Later, he said Mr Sukkar had changed his advice and wished to withdraw one of the statements attributed to him. He then made another submission mid-hearing, withdrawing comments from Mr Hunt and Mr Tudge. But there would be no apologies, he said. The Australian made a "full and sincere apology" for publishing the article although the newspaper's lawyer, William Houghton, QC, sought to distance the publication from the debacle. "Don't shoot the messenger," he said.

Chief Justice Warren replied: "Mr Houghton, this is a serious matter. This is not a matter for jocularity." The court has reserved its judgment on whether to refer the trio to possibly face contempt charges. Chief Justice Warren, Justice Mark Weinberg, and Justice Stephen Kaye, had several terse exchanges with Mr Donaghue and Mr Houghton during the 90-minute hearing. It was noted on several occasions that the ministers had previously stood by their comments, and Mr Donaghue was repeatedly asked whether they would apologise. If the judges chose to increase the jail terms for Besim and MHK, it could be seen that the ministers' comments had swayed them, Chief Justice Warren said, or that the justices had overreacted to them. But if the appeals were dismissed, it would appear the comments were correct.

"Why should we put in that embarrassing, invidious position?" Justice Weinberg said. The hearing spent a lot of time considering whether the ministers' comments amounted to "scandalising the court". Mr Donaghue said some of the ministers were speaking in shorthand about sentencing philosophy, and not about the individual cases. Peter Morrissey, SC, for Besim, said his client was "vitally concerned" about the "extraordinary and coordinated attack" on the court. The article showed a "shallowness and malice towards the court", he said.

Robert Richter, QC, for MHK, a teenager who, the court heard, was indirectly impacted by the comments, given he also has an appeal outstanding, said there was "as clear and egregious" a case of subjudice as he had ever seen. Justice Kaye said the ignorance of the ministers in commenting on sentencing while two decisions were reserved "disturbs me greatly, not only as a judge of this court but as a citizen of this nation". Justice Weinberg asked Mr Houghton whether The Australian would have published a story where judges were alleged to have been bribed and corrupt. "It would depend on the context," he answered. "Is that a serious answer?" the judge responded.

Loading Mr Hunt withdrew a comment relating to Victorian judges conducting "ideological experiments", Mr Sukkar a statement regarding the judges being "hard left" and Mr Tudge the quote which claimed judges were "divorced from reality". Justice Kaye told Mr Houghton the quotes used in the article were completely misleading. "That may be so," Mr Houghton began to respond, before Justice Kaye interrupted. "It is so," he said. "I was there." Commonwealth prosecutors say Besim's 7½-year non-parole jail term, for planning to behead a police officer on Anzac Day 2015, is inadequate. They also argue MHK's minimum five-year jail term, for plotting a bomb attack on Mother's Day 2015, is also inadequate.