As the NSW Parliament moves towards expulsion, Gareth Ward loses his legal battle.
Gareth Ward, an Independent MP, lost his last attempt to stop a vote to expel him from the state parliament in the legal and political drama that has engulfed New South Wales. Ward’s legal and political standing has quickly got worse after he was found shameful of serious sexual offences against two young men. The NSW Court of Appeal rejected his injunction, allowing for a formal vote in Parliament, although he intended to appeal the decision.
The court rejects Ward’s attempt to avoid the expulsion vote
Ward’s legal challenge was dismissed on Thursday by the three-judge NSW Court of Appeal, which found that:
- Parliament can still use its expulsion authority even if an appeal is filed.
- Ward is required to cover the government’s legal fees.
- His legal team got criticism for asking an urgent injunction without informing the government beforehand.
Chief Justice Andrew Bell criticised the defense’s procedural actions in particular, highlighting the value of fairness and willingness even in urgent proceedings.
The Character of Ward’s Beliefs
The 44-year-old Gareth Ward was determined guilty of:
- Sexually assaulting a drunk political staffer following a midweek parliamentary event in 2015.
- In 2013, a drunken 18-year-old was sexually abused at his South Coast residence.
Ward keeps going to serve as Kiama’s MP in spite of these convictions. He is being held waiting formal sentencing. Immediately following the jury’s decision, his bail was withdrawn.
Timing and Parliamentary Action
The court injunction delayed the Labor-led expulsion vote, which was originally set for Wednesday. The vote has been rescheduled for Friday, the last sitting day before Parliament breaks, now that that obstacle has been removed.
The Kiama electorate, which Ward has represented since 2011, will hold a by-election if the vote is approved, which is now considered inevitable. Despite being suspended and being the focus of an investigation at the time, he was re-elected as an independent in 2023.
Section 13A of the Constitution
The NSW Constitution states that MPs may be disqualified if
- They are found guilty of an offence that carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison.
- Disqualification, however, only takes place following the termination of appeals.
Crucially, the constitution keeps Parliament’s authority to remove a member at any time, regardless of the status of an appeal. This indicates that Parliament’s authority to act is distinct from the legal system, which is a key distinction in legal arguments.
Defence of Ward’s Legal Arguments Group
Peter King SC, Ward’s attorney, argued that:
- Instead of being protective, the expulsion was punitive.
- Given that Ward is unable to speak in Parliament while in custody, it was a denial of procedural justice.
- “Unworthy conduct,” which is essential according to the conventional expulsion justification, was not mentioned in the government’s expulsion letter.
King claimed that convictions by themselves were not enough proof of undeserving behaviour and called the procedure a “kangaroo court.” He asserted that the action punished Ward in advance of sentencing and before the appeals process could begin.
Court Rebuttals to Defence Arguments
The defense’s arguments failed to persuade the judges.
Chief Justice Bell posed a direct question:
You mean to say that convictions… aren’t actions that aren’t worthy?”
Fairness Jeremy Kirk went on to explain:
“It can’t be a mystery. On an indictment, he was put on trial in public.
“He, of all people, must be aware of the actions that led to in his conviction.”
These incisive comments emphasised the judiciary’s steadfast position that, by any appropriate measure, conduct unfit for public office is a conviction for sexual assault and indecent behaviour.
The Argument of Parliament – Preventive, Not Punitive
Craig Lenehan SC, Greg Piper’s attorney, defended the parliament’s decision:
- Emphasised that the expulsion was protective rather than punitive, with the goal to keep the integrity and trust of the legislative body.
- Claimed that Ward had received more procedural fairness than was strictly required because he had been given a chance to submit written arguments.
- Declared that Parliament has the authority to run its own affairs, including upholding public trust.
The Government’s Role – Serving the Public Interest
The House Leader, Ron Hoenig, reiterated the grounds for expulsion:
- The integrity of Parliament is compromised by Ward’s continuous attendance.
- Unless Parliament steps in, the people of Kiama might be represented by someone imprisoned until the next election.
- The appeal process might take “quite some time,” which would effectively render the seat inactive during a crucial time.
Hoenig also highlighted that Parliament cannot afford to do nothing on such significant problems and must continue to answer to the people.
Political Momentum – Expulsion Gains Bipartisan Support
- The expulsion is supported by the Coalition opposition as well as Labour.
- Mark Speakman, the leader of the opposition, said in public:
“The opposition is prepared to immediately remove Gareth Ward from Parliament.”
The vote is nearly certain to pass if both parties agree. Ward would be the first member of the NSW Parliament to be expelled since 1969 if that were the case.
Broader Consequences – Legal Authority, Democracy, and Public Trust
The case poses significant issues regarding how parliamentary authority and decisions by courts should be balanced:
- Should Parliament hold off until the appeals are over?
- Is acting now a necessary defence of institutional integrity or a violation of democratic representation?
- Does expulsion establish a precedent for early political repercussions based only on jury verdicts?
The decision’s supporters contend that the grave nature of the offences and their established status through conviction call for prompt action. Acting prior to sentencing or appeals, according to critics, hinders due process.
Final Thoughts – An Important Case with Long-Term Effects
In Australian politics, the Gareth Ward case is a unique constitutional test of parliamentary legitimacy, legal timing, and ethical duty. A conflict between the legal system and public accountability resulted from his convictions for sexual offences and his continued position as an MP.
The NSW Parliament is now prepared to take action with the support of the Court of Appeal. Although the result is almost certain, the legal and political debates it has sparked will continue, posing significant issues for behaviour and reform in the future.
