High Court hears case on whether NSW can arrest witnesses for parliament
James Cullen is fighting sections 7-9 of the Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901, which allows arrest warrants for witnesses.
The High Court heard arguments on Thursday. The question was whether New South Wales can use a law to arrest and jail people who refuse to attend a parliamentary inquiry.
Premier Chris Minns's chief of staff James Cullen started the legal challenge after facing jail for refusing to give evidence about leaked confidential minutes. In December, the NSW Court of Appeal sided with Cullen.
It ruled the law is unconstitutional because it forces a judge to issue an arrest warrant with no choice. This turns the judge into a "mere functionary".
Parliament's legal team argues the law has been valid since 1881 when the power was first given to courts. They say the Constitution believed courts could handle it.
The case matters because other witnesses have already used the ruling to avoid parliamentary questioning. This has weakened parliament's ability to hold the government to account.
- James Cullen
- Defendant
- Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901
- Law challenged
- December
- Court of Appeal ruling
- 14
- Barristers at High Court
Why it mattersIf the High Court backs Cullen's challenge, NSW parliament loses one of its last powers to force unwilling witnesses to answer questions.
AustraliaA High Court ruling against parliament weakens all state and federal committees' ability to compel testimony from government officials.
✓ Claims checked against the source. checked 19 h ago
