Lawyers for three federal ministers appeared in the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court in Melbourne, to explain why they shouldn't be referred for prosecution for contempt.
Health Minister Greg Hunt, Human Services Minister Alan Tudge and Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar had been ordered to appear in court over comments where they appeared to accuse the Victorian judiciary of advocating for lighter sentences for terrorists.
The comments were published in the Australian newspaper earlier this week, while an appeal was being heard against a seven and a half year sentence imposed on Anzac Day plotter Sevdet Besim and another teenager convicted of terror offences who cannot be named.
In the article, Mr Hunt said "the state courts should not be places for ideological experiments in the face of global and local threats from Islamic extremism".
Mr Tudge was quoted as saying "some judges seem more concerned about the terrorists than the safety of the community".
News that makes sense
Your trusted source for staying up-to-date with the world around you. Get free daily news updates and analysis, straight to your inbox.
Mr Sukkar called them "hard left activists".
Chief Justice Marilyn Warren said the comments were concerning.
"The statements on their face, fail to respect the doctrine of separation of powers," she told the court.
"(They could) breach the principle of sub judice (contempt); and reflect a lack of proper understanding of the importance to our democracy of the independence of the judiciary from the political arms of government," she said.
Robert Richter QC, the defence lawyers for one of the terrorists' whose appeal was being heard, said the comments were calculated to intimidate the court.
"(It's the most) clear, egregious case of sub-judice which has ever been," he told the court.
The Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Stephen Donaghue, said the ministers did not apologise, but expressed "regret".
He told the court the remarks were made in good faith, and they did not intend to undermine public confidence in the courts.
"(The ministers) did it to participate in what (they) considered to be an important public discussion," Mr Donaghue said.
However, after repeated questioning by the three judges, Mr Donaghue said his "instructions had evolved somewhat".
He said the ministers would retract three comments relating to "hard-left activist judges", conducting "ideological experiments" and suggestions the courts were "divorced from reality".
Lawyers for the Australian newspaper were also there to defend the publication of the comments.
Will Houghton QC, representing News Limited told the judges, "don't shoot the messenger".
He also said The Australian made a "full and sincere apology" for publishing the article.
He said the ministers approached the paper with the comments, sending them to the journalist directly.
"We published them, but we never endorsed or adopted them," Mr Houghton said.
The case is being closely watched by legal observers.
Professor Jeremy Gans, from the Melbourne University Law school, said freedom of speech and the separation of powers were both issues in the case.
"It's also about messages being sent from both sides about where they are going to try and draw lines," Mr Gans said.
"So really part of today's proceedings were a bit of a show on both sides."
The court reserved its judgement, with the judges noting they had a busy workload.
