George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation

[K]

...
Perhaps the defence strategy of trying (and failing) to prove that the crime was impossible is a hint. Pell wasn't called. The jury was thus really left to decide whether or not it believed the complainant, given a whole raft of circumstantial evidence that might or might not have been capable of persuading a jury that it was inherently unlikely that the allegations were true.
...

'The Age has been told by criminal barristers that the decision to avoid putting Pell before a jury to provide testimony and face cross-examination could work against them on appeal.

"It's widely accepted that the job of challenging a conviction is much harder when the accused chooses not to contest a prosecution case and submit themselves to cross-examination," a former QC said.'

[think positive]

Did anyone see the report on this on the ABC. Tonight? It was very interesting and compelling. No doubt for me. Guilty. Why? Because it just seems implausible that the victim would hang on to it this long, and the woman who spoke of him, well, she just seemed so real.

They had some lawyer/devout religious guy on there too, who was also convinced. And a mother of an abused child who told how he dismissed her and her family when they went to him for help.

[ronrat]

It's a little weird the media can say whatever they want while an appeal is going on. What if the appeal succeeds?

And jurors in some other countries can talk as much as they want.

I have been on jury duty a few times. On one case a women who was married to a Minister of religion told us after we had been charged by the Judge that she was not put on earth to judge others and God would punish evil doers. The bloke had pleaded guilty 2 t of the 7 charges of touching up a then 10 year old girl. We just browbeat her until broke down in tears and we got the bloke found guilty of 5 of 7 charges . She should have told the judge that in the first place and she would have been dismissed. Our worry was that the girl would have to go through a trial again .
Same trial and the kids had put superglue in the ticket machine at gardiner station and I couldn't buy a ticket . Soon as I got to Flagstaff I told them that and went to buy a ticket. Some gob off transport plod was going to fine me and I said I have to be in court and just went and bought a ticket. He kept giving me grief and I told him he could follow me to the County Court. Told the Tipstaff who told a court official who told the Judge. The judge called the Sherriff or one of his officials in and I repeated what happened. Apparently the Sherriff went down down and told the relevant head of the transport cops that any more interference with court business would result in serious grief for someone. The Sherriff takes these thing seriously and any juror talking out of school on this case will be in the next cell to Pell.

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

It's important not to get carried away by your own rhetoric. First, Pell is convicted. He may be acquitted on appeal but the substitution of a "not guilty" verdict is not the same thing as establishing that he did not do that of which he was accused. In no intelligible sense would Pell be "found innocent" by the Court of Appeal merely because it upheld his appeal. Secondly, one needs to bear in mind the distinction between the civil and criminal standards of proof. One cannot, of course, be "not guilty" on the balance of probabilities in a civil trial if one has already been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the relevant matters and that conviction stands. By contrast, one can be "not guilty" to the criminal standard but nevertheless a court can find in a civil matter that on the balance of probabilities (and being comfortably satisfied, having regard to the serious nature of the allegations) one did things of which one has been found "not guilty" in a criminal trial. People who have been found "not guilty" of a crime are not thereby "exonerated" = they are merely not subject to criminal punishment. One can imagine circumstances in which a finding of "not guilty" does, in substance, amount to an exoneration (because the finding necessarily entails the acceptance of the accused's version of events) but putting the prosecution to its proof and leading no evidence from the accused is rarely (if ever) going to produce a "not guilty" verdict in that category. Criminal defendants with a public profile often want to say that their "name has been cleared" but that's just bilge for the media, too. Thirdly, it is very important to bear in mind that people are routinely pilloried in the media without ever being found guilty of anything. So, a whole lot of public processes that do not have any special legal status as findings of fact are routinely reported as if all relevant legal matters have been established. Findings of coroners' courts and commissions royal are obvious examples. Both are administrative - and not judicial - processes. No-one mentioned in the findings of either stands convicted of anything until they are found guilty by a court. People can be the subject of "adverse comment" by a royal commission and have their careers completely destroyed without ever being tried in respect of allegations of criminal conduct. I do not think that many of us would wish to live in a world in which no one could comment adversely about the conduct of a public (or any) figure merely because they hadn't been found guilty in a court of law in respect of some particular thing. It would be a difficult world in which nothing adverse could be said about anybody in public until they had been convicted of something and all appeal avenues had been exhausted. Fourthly, a comment of the kind you have attributed to Ford in respect of Bolt would not become "true" merely because Pell's conviction were not overturned on appeal. I find Bolt's use of his public position to defend a person who stands convicted of a serious criminal offence curious but I do not think that makes him an "apologist".

[Pies4shaw]

A question P4S, I could google this but I like your brevity.

My understanding is a court of appeal in this case would be a number of judges (however titled) who would review the case based on the appellants argument.

can you please explain what the grounds for appeal are, what the powers and limitations of the court of appeal are and how much discretion they have?

Can they just quash a conviction or does that send it back to another trial? do they have to stick to the grounds or do they have scope to go outside?

Here's the position in Victoria: http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/e ... /27867.htm

I think the answer to your main question about grounds of appeal is in paragraph 8 - but the document contains a number of links that you or others may wish to explore. It is important to appreciate, though, that the right is governed by statute (at the present time, our Criminal Procedure Act 2009), so it may well differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction or be altered from time to time in Victoria. It's also important to appreciate that convictions in different courts lead to different appeal processes. So, eg, if the conviction is in the Magistrates' Court, the appeal lies to the County Court and is in the nature of a full re-hearing (on new evidence). Save in very unusual circumstances, the Court of Appeal does its task with the transcript of evidence from the trial.

As to the Orders the Court of Appeal may make on a successful criminal appeal, see http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/e ... /27876.htm

[K]

[Wokko]

Something doesn't smell right about a conviction based on 1 witness; the accuser against a public figure. Sure we can say that he deserves to go down for something given his covering up and facilitating of abuse by others but 'beyond reasonable doubt' used to mean something. It doesn't matter how credible and heartfelt a witness is the fact is that there is another witness here (the accused) who refutes their story; surely creating doubt.

The secretive nature of sexual assault trials and inability to cross examine in some instances is troubling. Still bemused that Pell didn't testify, but I guess he IS an unlikeable, aloof weirdo so I can see where they were coming from in keeping him away from the stand.

[Bruce Gonsalves]

Floodgates may open with more victims of Pell coming forward.

[stui magpie]

A question P4S, I could google this but I like your brevity.

My understanding is a court of appeal in this case would be a number of judges (however titled) who would review the case based on the appellants argument.

can you please explain what the grounds for appeal are, what the powers and limitations of the court of appeal are and how much discretion they have?

Can they just quash a conviction or does that send it back to another trial? do they have to stick to the grounds or do they have scope to go outside?

Here's the position in Victoria: http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/e ... /27867.htm

I think the answer to your main question about grounds of appeal is in paragraph 8 - but the document contains a number of links that you or others may wish to explore. It is important to appreciate, though, that the right is governed by statute (at the present time, our Criminal Procedure Act 2009), so it may well differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction or be altered from time to time in Victoria. It's also important to appreciate that convictions in different courts lead to different appeal processes. So, eg, if the conviction is in the Magistrates' Court, the appeal lies to the County Court and is in the nature of a full re-hearing (on new evidence). Save in very unusual circumstances, the Court of Appeal does its task with the transcript of evidence from the trial.

As to the Orders the Court of Appeal may make on a successful criminal appeal, see http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/e ... /27876.htm

Thanks for that P4S.

It would seem to me, as a layman, that in this case the most likely approach is to argue the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

In a case where you have 1 word against another with no other relevant evidence, you would think the arguments reportedly made by Pells team would sufficient to raise reasonable doubt.

Using the standard of proof of balance of probabilities, I can see him being found guilty, under the standard beyond reasonable doubt (and granted I wasn't there and didn't hear the testimony) I struggle.

I've read and quoted elsewhere the concept that humans tend to make decisions based on emotions and try to justify them later with logic. This could be an example when you have a (reportedly) compelling witness giving testimony that would have tagged the emotional centres of the jurors, vs a generally stern unlikable figure who doesn't testify and relies on his defence to provide their version of facts to support his innocence.

In the battle of facts vs emotion, emotion will win.

As an aside, I found it interesting that the Magistrate reportedly criticised Pell for his lack of remorse. That's a strange statement to me and a borderline non sequiter because if a person maintains they are innocent, how and why would they suddenly be remorseful for something they maintain they didn't do?

Being found guilty means you have been found guilty according to the legal process. It doesn't, as history has shown, that it means the person actually did it.

I fully appreciate that the large number of people who were victims of paedophile Priests and the systematic cover up by the catholic church would be celebrating the guilty verdict and I don't wish to denigrate them in any way. their suffering was real.

If an innocent man is convicted of a crime and as a result a number of victims of similar crimes are able to feel symbolically vindicated and the organisation that tacitly supported those crimes is forced to reassess things, is that a miscarriage of justice or a good outcome?

In the circumstances, I'm inclined to say both

[think positive]

Something doesn't smell right about a conviction based on 1 witness; the accuser against a public figure. Sure we can say that he deserves to go down for something given his covering up and facilitating of abuse by others but 'beyond reasonable doubt' used to mean something. It doesn't matter how credible and heartfelt a witness is the fact is that there is another witness here (the accused) who refutes their story; surely creating doubt.

The secretive nature of sexual assault trials and inability to cross examine in some instances is troubling. Still bemused that Pell didn't testify, but I guess he IS an unlikeable, aloof weirdo so I can see where they were coming from in keeping him away from the stand.

The victim was Criss examined for an entire day by Pells lawyer, obviously he was very convincing to the jury.

[K]

Cardinal sin: critics raise questions about George Pell's conviction

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 510iv.html

"Several criminal lawyers who spoke to The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald on the condition of anonymity said they were "astonished" at Pell's conviction given the apparent lack of grooming, the short window available for Pell to abuse the boys, and the robes he was wearing, which had no splits or openings.
...

Victorian Bar president Matt Collins said it was highly unusual for a conviction to be made on behalf of a victim who had never reported abuse.

"No one can recall a case where an accused person was convicted of an offence against a deceased person of this kind," he said.

However, he said, it was crucial to note the court had found Pell's crimes were committed against two victims at the same time. Therefore, Dr Collins said, Pell's legal team had been able to cross examine the evidence provided by one victim, on behalf of the other.

The surviving victim was both a victim and a witness.
...

He did not put Pell on the stand to give evidence in his defence, a decision leapt on by Pell's critics.

But legal sources said this is standard practice in trials for serious criminal conduct like sexual abuse and murder. Juries are also routinely directed not to speculate when people standing trial are not put on the stand to defend themselves."

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

^ Nor were they unconvinced. They were not all convinced.

You can all be quite sure that this would-be appellant will get procedural fairness in the Court of Appeal. If the conviction was wrong in any relevant sense it will be quashed.

[David]