This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
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
I think we all know who Pope Francis was really referring to here:
It's amazing the criticism of the legal system (not necessarily on this forum). Leave it society (proven to be a bunch of dickheads) and decisions would be based on a social media poll.
"George Pell’s legal team privately petitioned Victoria's Director of Public Prosecutions two years ago to abandon the criminal proceedings against the cardinal, citing much of the same evidence that convinced the High Court to quash his conviction.
...
Sources with knowledge of the matter told The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald the confidential petition took the form of an application for discontinuance, an option not often pursued by defence lawyers due to the unlikelihood of success.
For the DPP to take a criminal matter to trial, they must be satisfied there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and a public interest in running the case.
Cardinal Pell’s legal team submitted to Ms Judd that the prosecution was doomed to fail and the problems in the evidence should not be obscured by the strong public interest in the case."
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
I think we all know who Pope Francis was really referring to here:
K wrote:"George Pell’s legal team privately petitioned Victoria's Director of Public Prosecutions two years ago to abandon the criminal proceedings against the cardinal, citing much of the same evidence that convinced the High Court to quash his conviction.
...
Sources with knowledge of the matter told The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald the confidential petition took the form of an application for discontinuance, an option not often pursued by defence lawyers due to the unlikelihood of success.
For the DPP to take a criminal matter to trial, they must be satisfied there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and a public interest in running the case.
Cardinal Pell’s legal team submitted to Ms Judd that the prosecution was doomed to fail and the problems in the evidence should not be obscured by the strong public interest in the case."
Well, there's a leak and a beat up! He was found guilty by a jury and convicted and the conviction was upheld on the first appeal. There is no merit at all in suggesting that the High Court's decision means that the case shouldn't have gone to trial.
First jury was hung (reports of 10-2 acquittal). I'm surprised it got past whatever metrics are meant to determine the ability to get a fair trial tbh, everyone knows who Pell is and most hold an opinion on him and the Church that no amount of logic, facts and evidence will sway.
Is the 7-0 High Court verdict usual or do they tend to split like the US Supreme court when hearing controversial cases?
My understanding (which I'm sure I'll be told is wrong) is that the High Court judges can each reach their own decision and document their own reasons.
As such, you can have the case where all 7 agree but may have different reasons or if they don't all agree you can have a majority decision and each publishes their reasons, similar to Pell's appeal to the Victorian court where the different judges documented the reasons for their decisions.
The fact that this was a unanimous decision and a single set of agreed reasons shows they were all in extreme agreement.
"Some have complained the High Court is making the jury’s job redundant and that the court has “mistreated” the jury... Why should we bother to serve if the High Court will not trust our decisions? That has been a theme on social media. It is wrong.
All the High Court did was to restate the law. As the Law Council of Australia observed, “although the testimony of [Pell's accuser] was capable of being considered truthful and reliable when taken by itself, there was other contradictory evidence before the court that was unchallenged by the Crown and which therefore also had to be considered truthful and reliable. When considered together, a reasonable doubt must have arisen as to which account was correct.” This has always been the law. It doesn’t say to potential jurors their job is superfluous.
But that does not mean we shouldn't reflect on what the 21st century means for juries and where they fit into our legal system.
...
The potential for jurors to have knowledge about a case they are selected to decide upon is self-evident.
It raises an important question. Should Pell, given the hostility of the media, had the option a trial by judge alone? This was not available to him in Victoria but would have been in NSW, South Australia, the ACT, Queensland and Western Australia. Not because of Pell’s position but because such a right should be available to every person in Australia, irrespective of where they happened to be charged by police.
...
One will never know whether the jurors in the Pell case were influenced by the negative media. This does not mean they did not undertake their task to the best of their ability and with good conscience. But is it good enough to work on the hunch that a person’s liberty and reputation should be in the hands of 12 individuals about whom nothing is known, and in circumstances where no reasons have to be provided as to why they find a person guilty or not guilty? This is a point made often by Malcolm McCusker QC, a leading West Australian barrister and Kim Beazley’s predecessor as governor of that state.
...
There is little point courts trying to suppress unfavourable pre-trial media coverage about an accused person. The internet has changed all that. But defendants across Australia should have a right to a judge-alone trial. In fact, courts should have the right to order one. This protects the right of an accused to a fair trial and diminishes the perfidious influence of trial by media.
The Pell case, one hopes, will ensure that attorneys-general in every jurisdiction enshrine this right into nationally consistent legislation."
'Greg Barns is a barrister and a lecturer in RMIT’s Graduate School of Business and Law.'
So Pell who was in Authority at the time knew of the abuse. Of course we all knew that too. He didn’t do anything and made things worse. He should go back to Prison. Scum.
