The three ministers may not, however, be able to attend the hearing in person and the apology would have to be made by their lawyer. Alan Tudge, Michael Sukkar and Greg Hunt could be charged with contempt of court. Credit:Andrew Meares This is because, under the Parliamentary Privileges Act, an MP cannot be required to attend court when Parliament sits, and the House of Representatives is expected to sit in Canberra on Friday to pass the amended Gonski 2.0 legislation. In a move designed to wedge the government and give the three ministers no excuse but to appear in court in person on Friday, Labor offered at the end of question time to offer the men a "pair". A pair is an arrangement that allows an MP from each side of politics to miss a vote in parliament, and cancel each other out without changing the result.

In comments that were published in The Australian newspaper, Mr Hunt had accused the Victorian legal system of becoming a forum for "ideological experiments", as the Court of Appeal considered a federal prosecutor's appeal over the sentence of convicted terrorist Sevdet Ramadan Besim. Mr Sukkar said the judiciary should focus more on victims and less on terrorists' rights, while Mr Tudge said some judges were "divorced from reality". The three Victorian ministers – all qualified lawyers – face being charged with contempt of court for their public comments, which were made before the Court of Appeal had announced its ruling on the appeals of Besim and another teenager jailed for terrorism offences known as MHK. The judgement on the Besim and MHK cases is due at 10am on Friday, before the ministers' apology at 11.30am. People convicted of contempt of court face fines and potential jail terms. The ministers could potentially be ineligible to sit in Parliament, which would force three by-elections, and could even lead to the Turnbull government losing its one seat majority.

Last week, Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue, QC, representing the ministers, was repeatedly asked whether the men would apologise. At the start of his submission to Chief Justice Warren, Justice Mark Weinberg, and Justice Stephen Kaye, Mr Donaghue said the ministers regretted their statements, but would not withdraw or apologise for them. But he was then forced into a series of withdrawals mid-hearing - first on advice from Mr Sukkar, and then from the other two ministers. "My instructions have evolved somewhat in the course of the morning," Mr Donaghue said. "I can convey to the Court that I have received instructions to withdraw three of the statements in the article." Justice Kaye, at one point in the hearing, observed that it "is a matter of very deep concern that three ministers of the Crown are clearly so ignorant of the separation of powers and sub judice", and said he had not seen a case like this in 40 years in the law.

This was because, regardless of what they decided in two prosecution appeals against the convicted men's sentences, the public would perceive that the judges had been influenced by the ministers. The comments appeared to fall into conduct which could be considered to have "scandalised" the court, the judges said. Loading The three ministers declined to comment. Follow us on Facebook