The bold bit is correct. That was the reason for my post that the appeal judges would work it out entirely unassisted. For all of the rubbish that has been written about this in the media, the basic issues in the case were very straightforward. You don't get to be President of the Court of Appeal because you can't reach a sensible decision unless you are entertained by Counsel.David wrote:Basically, they found that the acts were both possible and, given the compelling testimony of the victim, beyond reasonable doubt. The dissenting judge, Mark Weinberg, however, found that the testimony was unbelievable and implausible.
Perhaps the prosecution lawyer, Christopher Boyce, was more brilliant than any of us gave him credit for (or more likely, that it didn't matter greatly what he said or did during the hearing).
The important bit going forward is to appreciate that the vast majority of applications for special leave are refused (the chances of getting special leave any day of the week are less than about 5%). And, being granted special leave to appeal to the High Court, if he is, does not mean that Pell will win. Framing an informed market, you'd probably say that he's about 50 to 1 or worse to get up from here.
The criteria for a grant of special leave are set out in section 35A of the Judiciary Act:
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/ ... /s35a.html
In the ordinary way, I expect that the the appeal papers will be available on line (perhaps with redactions to maintain the public anonymity of the complainant). I will post links when (if) they are available.
If you thought the earlier processes were interesting or surprising, you're going to love special leave. It's a little like a "super over" - the judges have a timer on the bench - the red light goes on after 20 minutes and you shut up, mid-sentence, at that point. That's if the Court even thinks the application warrants an oral hearing.
