George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation

[swoop42]

In defence of Pell or more broadly any accused in a similar situation I do find it somewhat troubling that police are seemingly charging more people now than ever before where corroborating evidence appears lacking and a trial result is basically being decided by a jury choosing to believe the testimony of one person over another.

When there has been such a long passage of time between when the alleged crime took place and it's reporting this lack of corroborating evidence with a reliance on individual testimony should require even greater scrutiny by police and the DPP before any charge is laid.

This is the latest example of why I believe Australia would be better served in introducing a statute of limitations like seen in the US.

Pell might well be innocent and justice has now been served.

Perhaps he remains guilty.

He does appear very fortunate however that his profile has likely allowed him the luxury of appearing before the High Court that others convicted for a range of crimes under similar circumstances of evidence aren't afforded.

That the legal system is still not an even playing field for all is the only known injustice here.

[stui magpie]

I read that article when it first came out and, like you, found it persuasive. However, when it comes to matters of law, I'll listen first to a contributor who has formal training in the field and a lifetime of experience.

Yes, it was a slap at you. Or rather, it was in defence of the poster you were disparaging so unfairly. (Not that he needs me to defend him, he's long since out of short pants.)

Well the slap missed and the person with a lifetime of experience in Crime was the one who wrote the article not the one criticising it.

Yes P4S doesn't need you to defend him, so why feel the need? The Law has specialty areas. You don't ask a contract lawyer to defend you in a criminal trial, you don't ask a criminal lawyer to review multi million dollar contracts . Neither would end well.

[think positive]

As the editor of a film magazine, all I can say is I’ve watched more fictional courtroom scenes than any of you*, and boy do those judges love banging that gavel!

*probably not actually true

judge judy would have shut em up

[Pies4shaw]

I read that article when it first came out and, like you, found it persuasive. However, when it comes to matters of law, I'll listen first to a contributor who has formal training in the field and a lifetime of experience.

Yes, it was a slap at you. Or rather, it was in defence of the poster you were disparaging so unfairly. (Not that he needs me to defend him, he's long since out of short pants.)

Well the slap missed and the person with a lifetime of experience in Crime was the one who wrote the article not the one criticising it.

Yes P4S doesn't need you to defend him, so why feel the need? The Law has specialty areas. You don't ask a contract lawyer to defend you in a criminal trial, you don't ask a criminal lawyer to review multi million dollar contracts . Neither would end well.

I can scarcely begin to imagine what you think I do for a living that you would call me a “contract lawyer”.

Be that as it may, what just happened in the High Court wasn’t “criminal law”, it was a common or garden appellate process conducted in the standard way according to the High Court’s general principles. And, of course, decided by a group of people who were nearly all “contract lawyers” before they were appointed to the Bench. There’s a reason for that - it might pay to think through why that happens.

[swoop42]

Is our High Court as politically appointed as we see with the US supreme court?

[Pies4shaw]

^ The High Court is appointed by the Executive, as is the case with judges and magistrates at all levels, here. Generally, though, there is little controversy about appointments. I don’t think for a moment - and doubt anyone who understands the process would think - that there was any partisan bias in this at all.

[K]

Nick Papas risks P4S's fury :

'Nick Papas, QC, a senior barrister and former chief magistrate and crown prosecutor, says a difficult question must now be asked; how could two Court of Appeal judges and the jury in Cardinal Pell’s trial not see the flaws in this case that were so apparent to the High Court.

“It is clearly a matter for community comment and indeed, a proper question to ask, and raises issues as to jury trials in these sort of matters,’’ Mr Papas said.

“The primary question is not what went wrong. The High Court has said what went wrong. This is a real call to consider whether there should be judge-alone cases in Victoria.”'

https://www.theage.com.au/national/high ... 54hzl.html

[David]

Is our High Court as politically appointed as we see with the US supreme court?

We are blessed that they are, as far as I understand it, appointed on merit and experience as opposed to ideological allegiance, and that they have a retirement age rather than holding the job until their final breath. The US Supreme Court is an ultra-politicised farce, and really should be dissolved and started again from scratch with an independent panel responsible for all future appointments.

[thesoretoothsayer]

In defence of Pell or more broadly any accused in a similar situation I do find it somewhat troubling that police are seemingly charging more
people now than ever before where corroborating evidence appears lacking and a trial result is basically being decided by a jury choosing to believe
the testimony of one person over another.

I think you've raised a really challenging issue.
One that I definitely struggle with.

Many cases of sexual assault are "he said, she said" situations where corroborating evidence does not exist.
In the past, with little chance of conviction, police have fobbed off victims and not even charged sexual predators.
For a good read about this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-28/ ... t/11871364
This clearly is not good enough.

Recently, there's been a push to fix this by adopting a policy of "believe the victim". This, however, can result in a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality and, as you point out, individuals being convicted solely upon testimony.
This appears to be the case with Pell who was convicted based on testimony that was, at best, implausible and, at worst, fantasy.

Victims deserve justice. Sexual predators need to be punished. Accused need a fair trial. How we balance these truths within our legal system is a huge challenge.

[K]

Statement of 'Witness J' through his lawyer:

"It is difficult in child sex abuse matters to satisfy a criminal court that the offending has occurred beyond the shadow of a doubt. It is a very high standard to meet - a very heavy burden. There are a lot of checks and balances in the criminal justice system and the appeal process is one of them. I respect that.

"I understand why criminal cases must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. No-one wants to live in a society where people can be imprisoned without due and proper process. This is a basic civil liberty.

"I would hate to think that one outcome of this case is that people are discouraged from reporting to the police. I would like to reassure child sexual abuse survivors that most people recognise truth when they hear it. They know the truth when they look it in the face. I am content with that.

"My journey has been long and I am relieved that it is over. I have my ups and downs. The darkness is never far away. Despite the stress of the legal process and public controversy I have tried hard to keep myself together. I am OK. I hope that everyone who has followed this case is OK.

"This case does not define me.

"I am a man who came forward for my friend who, sadly, is no longer with us. I am a man doing my best to be a loving dad, partner, son, brother and friend. I am doing my best to find and hold joy in my life and to provide a safe and loving home for my family."

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

^ "I’ll leave my colleagues to pick over the actual legal details of this judgement."

Very wise words.

[thesoretoothsayer]

^ "I’ll leave my colleagues to pick over the actual legal details of this judgement."

Very wise words.

Disagree.
The media (and twitter) being filled with instant law experts is a welcome break from it being filled with instant virus experts.

[Pies4shaw]

From where I sit, I suppose any advertising is good advertising.

[stui magpie]

^

Seems the Pope agrees.

Pope Francis
@Pontifex
In these days of #Lent, we've been witnessing the persecution that Jesus underwent and how He was judged ferociously, even though He was innocent. Let us #PrayTogether today for all those persons who suffer due to an unjust sentence because of someone had it in for them.
6:19 PM · Apr 7, 2020·TweetDeck