Far-right YouTuber launches fight against Victorian parliament
A far-right YouTube personality has launched a new legal fight against Daniel Andrews and the Victorian parliament.
Lawyers for a YouTuber who is suing officials at the Victorian parliament for denying him media access have argued he had an expectation to be granted a pass.
Avraham Shalom Yemini, who is a political journalist for right-wing Canadian site Rebel News, was denied an application for a Parliament of Victoria media pass.
His trial began in the Supreme Court on Tuesday where his lawyers said given his role Mr Yemini had a “necessary” interest and “legitimate expectation” to be able to ask questions.
Mr Yemini’s solicitor William Houghton, QC, told the court Mr Yemini’s pass was “wrongly refused” and it was in the public interest that his client be allowed into parliament.
The court was told Mr Yemini applied for a media pass in March last year and had his solicitors follow up a number of times after not hearing back from parliamentary officials.
In July, Mr Yemini received a response which said his application was not approved but no reason was given, the court was told.
Mr Yemini took the matter to court to fight for what was described as a fairer screening process.
Mr Houghton told the court his client was seeking reasons as to why his application was not approved.
The court was told Mr Yemini once tried to attend one of Daniel Andrews’ press conferences in February last year and presented a pass from the home affairs department.
Security allowed him to enter but he was intercepted at the entrance and escorted out of parliament by police.
His lawyers submitted in court that a video of the incident should be played and claimed he didn’t sneak into the press conference.
They also claimed in court that those who banned Mr Yemini had seen the video, which may have influenced their decision making.
Justice Ginnane dismissed that submission and said there was no evidence of that.
“If it’s got commentary, I am not going to watch it (the video),” he told the court.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the case was whether excluding a person from accessing parliament was covered by “parliamentary privilege”, which meant they could determine who could and could not have access.
“Without it (the power to determine who has access) parliament and the presiding officers would not be able to maintain order and ensure the proper functioning of parliament,” Christopher Horan QC told the court.
The trial continues.