The real mystery is why it took so long for three trained lawyers, who might reasonably be expected to grasp what a conviction on contempt would mean for their political careers and, possibly, the Turnbull Government, to realise this.

Surely the trio must have guessed this wasn't something to take lightly when The Australian, the newspaper which found itself in the court's cross hairs after publishing the allegedly contemptuous remarks under the headline "Judiciary "light on terrorism", seized the opportunity to apologise last week.

That is not something a newspaper generally chooses to do lightly.

Instead of taking their lead from the Fourth Estate, the three ministers only, and with reluctance, chose to just withdraw their remarks on that occasion.

This set in train a dangerous game of "chicken" with the judiciary that dragged on to the point they were staring down the barrel of being charged with contempt on Friday.

As a result the tweeting trinity have been relentlessly lampooned in the media as the three "unwise" monkeys for almost a fortnight over something that should have been quietly settled at the first sign of umbrage from the Victorian courts.

It's hard to recall an example of worse legal and political judgement by one senior minister, let alone three, in recent times.

While there is no real evidence to suggest any of the trio may have been emboldened in their criticisms, and subsequent sustained refusal to apologise, by the attacks Donald Trump has made on legal and judicial authorities in America, their behaviour did create an echo chamber effect.

The end result has been a long overdue victory for the principle of the separation of powers and the rule of law.

One of the key issues was that as Government ministers with clear legislative and executive responsibilities, none of the three should have left themselves open to the suggestion they were attempting to exert influence over how the judiciary performed its role.

Another was that claiming Victorian courts were attempting "ideological experiments", that judges were "hard left" political appointees, that the judges were "divorced from reality" and were "more concerned about the terrorists than the safety of the community" was sub judice given the case the ministers were pontificating on was still the subject of an ongoing appeal.

That appeal, for the record, was also finalised on Friday with the terrorists in question receiving significant increases to their sentences.

Given it was not that long ago that opposition leader, Bill Shorten, was venting his displeasure over the Fair Work Commission's penalty rates decision, this case is a reminder to politicians on all sides of the political fence that words can have consequences and that the independence of the judiciary and similar bodies must be respected.