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 Victorian parliament officials for denying him media access have argued he expected to get a pass.
Avraham Shalom Yemini, who is a political reporter for the right-wing Canadian site Rebel News, was denied a request for a media pass from Victoria’s Parliament.
His trial began in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, where his lawyers said that, given his role, Mr Yemini had a “necessary” interest and a “legitimate expectation” to be able to ask questions.
Mr Yemini’s solicitor, William Houghton, QC, told the court that Mr Yemini’s pass had been ‘wrongly refused’ and that it was in the public interest that his client be allowed entry in Parliament.
The court was told that Mr Yemini applied for a media pass in March last year and his lawyers followed up several times after getting no response from parliamentary officials.
In July, Mr Yemini received a response that his application had not been approved, but no reason was given, the court heard.
Mr Yemini took the case to court to fight for what was described as a fairer selection process.
Mr Houghton told the court his client was looking for reasons why his application had not been approved.
The court heard that Mr Yemini once tried to attend one of Daniel Andrews’ press conferences in February last year and presented a pass from the Department of Home Affairs.
Security allowed him in but he was intercepted at the entrance and escorted out of parliament by the police.
His lawyers argued in court that a video of the incident should be released and claimed he did not sneak into the press conference.
They also claimed in court that those who banned Mr. Yemini had seen the video, which could have influenced their decision-making.
Judge Ginnane rejected this claim and said there was no evidence of this.
“If there are any comments, I’m not going to watch it (the video),” he told the court.
Counsel for the respondent argued that the issue was whether the exclusion of a person from access to parliament was covered by “parliamentary privilege”, which meant that they could determine who could and could not access it.
“Without it (the power to determine who has access), parliament and presiding officers would not be able to keep order and keep parliament running smoothly,” Christopher Horan QC told the court.
The trial continues.
