Speaker’s Rulings — Application of Sub Judice Rule—Ministerial Responsibility

Members, yesterday in question time, I committed to reviewing the exchange during question No. 7 to the Minister of Police regarding a reference to an alleged offence that, I understand, is currently before the courts, and to come back to the House on the intersection of the sub judice rule and the responsibility of Ministers to answer questions.

I have now had time to review the Hansard, and can confirm that there is no change to the longstanding application of the sub judice rule in this House. References or analysis of the facts, or seeking opinions in respect of specific cases of alleged wrongdoing that are before the courts should be avoided. I will continue to be vigilant to ensure the House doesn’t embark on questioning or debating those matters—Speaker’s ruling 32/3. It may well be that members and the Speaker do not know that a certain issue is before the courts when they ask their question; in some cases, the Minister will know and may decide to refuse to answer questions about specific cases, on that basis. Further, a Minister may refuse to answer if they feel it is not in the public interest to do so, but, if that is the reason, they should say so.

In the case of question No. 7 yesterday, I do not consider that the question would fall under the sub judice rule, as it only tangentially refers to victims of an alleged offence as individual business owners, like the business referred to. It did not ask about a specific alleged offence. The question was in respect of general Government policy on access to a programme or businesses that had been victimised once or multiple times. In fact, the Minister did answer the question when it was reworded immediately following, despite the member again referring to the victim of the alleged offence.

I am ruling that the Minister did have responsibility to answer the question about accessing the programme when it was first asked, but also that members, especially after they have been informed of a case before the courts, should take care when addressing broad policy issues and to do so without referring to those specific individual cases.