Australian High Court quashes conviction of Cardinal Pell on sex offences

[jesimps]

The way the world's going, it won't be long before sex with minors is legal. In fact, it'll be encouraged and people will go "Ahhh, bless them" as adults marry children of school age. Anyone speaking out against it will be charged with hate speech.

[simple1]

2 hours ago, samran said:

On this particular topic, it’s the other way around. For years the church has actively used its political power to shut down any criticism. It’s only been recently that any momentum has been gained. 

So far as I know, to this day the Church has not taken lessons on board - practices and upholds Cannon Law as the 'true law' thereby still providing mechanisms for protection, though illegal, from Common Law.

[Mick501]

1 hour ago, ncc1701d said:

He’s as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo. A google search of “pell vanilla sex” says it all for me.

Point of clarification please.  Says it all about you, or to you?  Why on earth would you search that?

 

obviously some pretty strong evidence in the returned results to make you think that the 7-0 opinion of the full bench of the high court is wrong.  But you're not on your own.  Plenty others respondents here don't seem to care that there simply wasn't any evidence against this guy presented at trial, and it could not have happened in the manner the complainant described.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Mick501

[RJRS1301]

19 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

1 hour ago, ncc1701d said:

He’s as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo. A google search of “pell vanilla sex” says it all for me.

NCC, Pell did not say that RichterQC his barrister said it, and then withdrew his words as being unaccpetable. 

I think he was offering a comment on the "scale of the alledged act" as opposed to rape/buggery/etc, not a wise thing to do, as most barristers in Australia never give coment  to the press, the same jurors do not.

 

[mfd101]

When my forthcoming trial comes up (for being a heroin-addicted Muslim rapist & terrorist) I'm hoping the jurors on my case will be at least half-rational.

 

Of course I'm trying to avoid publicity too, so there won't be too many concerned citizens outside the courtroom shouting Kill'em Hang'em Death's too good forem!

[RJRS1301]

5 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

When my forthcoming trial comes up (for being a heroin-addicted Muslim rapist & terrorist) I'm hoping the jurors on my case will be at least half-rational.

 

Of course I'm trying to avoid publicity too, so there won't be too many concerned citizens outside the courtroom shouting Kill'em Hang'em Death's too good forem!

Have you repented ??

 

[Jane Dough]

57 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I am guessing you were in the original court to hear the evidence, at the first appeal to Victorian Appeals Court and the High Court of Australia to here the appeal?

If not what does Australia or the High Court Justices have to be hanging their collective heads for?

 

 

Australian apologist alert.

 

Rooster

[mfd101]

7 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Have you repented ??

 

I am innocent so I cannot repent.

[RJRS1301]

5 minutes ago, Jane Dough said:

Australian apologist alert.

 

Rooster

Unashamed of the judical system in this case.  Read the decision in its entirity.

I am not a supporter of either Pell or the RC church or any other religious organisation, but the prosecution did not prove its case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

Your response is boderline pathetic

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by RJRS1301

[Mick501]

39 minutes ago, Jane Dough said:

Australian apologist alert.

 

Rooster

7-0.  A more comprehensive thrashing than Germany v Brazil, yet still you moan.

 

if you would be happy that you or someone you knew was convicted with no evidence and a complainant that was blatantly wrong about the circumstances, well....

Edited April 7, 2020 by Mick501

[Inn Between]

Unbelievable and shameful action by Australia's legal system. Pell, the stinking piece of human garbage, is free to leave prison. but he'll always know and have to live with his horrible sins, even if he's incapable of true remorse. Australia just dropped a little lower on the World Humanity Scale.    

[steven100]

9 minutes ago, Inn Between said:

Australia just dropped a little lower on the World Humanity Scale

and that's your decision. Case closed. 

[RJRS1301]

8 hours ago, Jane Dough said:

Australian apologist alert.

 

Rooster

Unashamed of the judical system in this case.  Read the decision in its entirity.

I am not a supporter of either Pell or the RC church or any other religious organisation, but the prosecution did not prove its case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by RJRS1301

[RJRS1301]

8 hours ago, Inn Between said:

Unbelievable and shameful action by Australia's legal system. Pell, the stinking piece of human garbage, is free to leave prison. but he'll always know and have to live with his horrible sins, even if he's incapable of true remorse. Australia just dropped a little lower on the World Humanity Scale.    

Good to see an open mind, (not) especially from a person who probably was not in any of the court hearings, has not read the transcripts, has heard no evidence, and I doubt you have read the High Court reasons, 

I hope you never have to go to trial for any reason, and if you do I hope any jury will appraoch any matter with an open mind.

The bar is Beyond Reasonable Doubt. 

[Lacessit]

12 hours ago, Tropposurfer said:

Without being able to actually read the mind and soul of this man no one will ever know whether he aided and abetted other to, and abused anyone directly.

Information given in his trial says he did aid and abet sexual abuse of children, but sadly form what I read of the information/testimonies these were without corroborating witnesses ... so ... he got off as we see.

As an ex-psychotherapist I ask you to believe me when I say; If we suppress our natural energies i.e. the need for intimate contact with another adult (e.g. adult partner sexual contact as part of this) and falsely empower priests with some magical relationship with God/Christ once ordained, add to this extreme control of others and we create a field rich in propensity for aberration of these natural and beautiful instincts).

This is fundamental to all human existence.

The Church is to blame for creating thousands if not millions of peaodophiles over the ages because of it's bizarre precepts.

The precepts are not bizarre, it's all about money.

Celibacy was brought in by the Roman Catholic church several hundred years ago as a means of protecting its property from paternity and inheritance claims. Putting it slightly differently to your post, it is statistically inevitable celibacy will create a percentage of paedophiles in any population.

The Church has known this for several centuries, and has denied, obfuscated, and concealed paedophilia all along the line.

Pell was in charge of the so-called " Melbourne Response " which sought to minimize the amount of damages the Church had to pay out to abuse survivors. I use the word survivors because many committed suicide. Again, it was about money.

Pell may be a cardinal, to me he's just a grub.

[Lacessit]

10 hours ago, Mick501 said:

7-0.  A more comprehensive thrashing than Germany v Brazil, yet still you moan.

 

if you would be happy that you or someone you knew was convicted with no evidence and a complainant that was blatantly wrong about the circumstances, well....

What do you have to say about a new complainant that has come forward to say he was abused by Pell too? Wheel out all the silks again, I suppose.

The original witness was found to be highly credible during the trial, so stop lying about him being blatantly wrong.

[samran]

2 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

The bar is Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

A standard applied differently to him but which the Catholic Church - and I’m talking about Pell himself- never allowed to have applied to victims...

Edited April 8, 2020 by samran

[Olmate]

19 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

What do you have to say about a new complainant that has come forward to say he was abused by Pell too? Wheel out all the silks again, I suppose.

The original witness was found to be highly credible during the trial, so stop lying about him being blatantly wrong.

The complainants recall of events never once deviated during from the beginning. Despite the attempts of some of the best to attack his recollections, even Prosecutors when preparing their brief. He was there when the offence occurred. The so called doubt was based on others, who were not there, saying that it was not likely or that that was not Pells usual MO. Therefore the court has given priority to hearsay over actual evidence by the victim. The Jury believed that was beyond reasonable doubt. The latest ruling means the jury system has been completely thrown out and will result in many earlier guilty findings being thrown into question. Time for the AG to step in.

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

Good to see an open mind, (not) especially from a person who probably was not in any of the court hearings, has not read the transcripts, has heard no evidence, and I doubt you have read the High Court reasons, 

I hope you never have to go to trial for any reason, and if you do I hope any jury will appraoch any matter with an open mind.

The bar is Beyond Reasonable Doubt. 

I'm reminded of the statement the law is an ass.

There's something to say for the French judicial system, where the magistrate examines the entire life history of the accused. Given Pell's record in covering up pedophilia, and his treatment of abuse survivors making claims, guess what the verdict would have been then?

Edited April 8, 2020 by Lacessit

[RJRS1301]

51 minutes ago, Olmate said:

The complainants recall of events never once deviated during from the beginning. Despite the attempts of some of the best to attack his recollections, even Prosecutors when preparing their brief. He was there when the offence occurred. The so called doubt was based on others, who were not there, saying that it was not likely or that that was not Pells usual MO. Therefore the court has given priority to hearsay over actual evidence by the victim. The Jury believed that was beyond reasonable doubt. The latest ruling means the jury system has been completely thrown out and will result in many earlier guilty findings being thrown into question. Time for the AG to step in.

Jury decisions are often overturned on appeal, this not a first either in Australia or many other jurisdictions, which why there is right to appeal.

 

[RJRS1301]

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I'm reminded of the statement the law is an ass.

There's something to say for the French judicial system, where the magistrate examines the entire life history of the accused. Given Pell's record in covering up pedophilia, and his treatment of abuse survivors making claims, guess what the verdict would have been then?

Yes you could only guess, as it is not a French system

[Mick501]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

What do you have to say about a new complainant that has come forward to say he was abused by Pell too? Wheel out all the silks again, I suppose.

The original witness was found to be highly credible during the trial, so stop lying about him being blatantly wrong.

Geez, I dint know.  Maybe have the allegations investigated and tested at court if warranted?  I know these ideas sound crazy to you and you'd prefer just to listen to your inner hatred drummed up by the ABC, but sometimes it can be better  just to think, "what the heck.   I'm going to give rational thought a try."

[Olmate]

5 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

Geez, I dint know.  Maybe have the allegations investigated and tested at court if warranted?  I know these ideas sound crazy to you and you'd prefer just to listen to your inner hatred drummed up by the ABC, but sometimes it can be better  just to think, "what the heck.   I'm going to give rational thought a try."

Crikey Mick, now it’s the ABC! Credibility my son,there there! 

[Mick501]

11 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Crikey Mick, now it’s the ABC! Credibility my son,there there! 

Lol, you really don't think the ABC vilified this guy over a protracted period?    Don't get me wrong, he probably did cover up abuse by other priests, in times when the world barely acknowledged that there was a problem with pedo priests.  But the ABC has conducted a hate campaign which very likely was a main driver that led a jury to convict, when as every judge on the high court stated, "a jury acting rationally should have had reasonable doubt."

 

There is no doubt the jury did not act rationally.  Or do you have an alternate explanation?

Edited April 8, 2020 by Mick501

[RJRS1301]

3 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

Lol, you really don't think the ABC vilified this guy over a protracted period?    Don't get me wrong, he probably did cover up abuse by other priests, in times when the world barely acknowledged that there was a problem with pedo priests.  But the ABC has conducted a hate campaign which very likely was a main driver that led a jury to convict, when as every judge on the high court stated, "a jury acting rationally should have had reasonable doubt."

 

There is no doubt the jury did not act rationally.  Or do you have an alternate explanation?

It was always a very unsafe verdict, given all the media hype and the Royal Commission revelantions, it would have been very hard to find an unbiased jury, (either way)and given Pells evidence to the Royal Commission and so much personal dislike towards him as a man and priest dating back decades, irrespective of the charges. 

The newly aired allegations have not been investigated.

He was not trial for moving priests, or not reporting abuse to police.

I feel this gives the HIgh Court Justices credibility, that although they have made an "unpopular" decision, they looked at the facts as presented. 

 

[Mick501]

6 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

It was always a very unsafe verdict, given all the media hype and the Royal Commission revelantions, it would have been very hard to find an unbiased jury, (either way)and given Pells evidence to the Royal Commission and so much personal dislike towards him as a man and priest dating back decades, irrespective of the charges. 

The newly aired allegations have not been investigated.

He was not trial for moving priests, or not reporting abuse to police.

I feel this gives the HIgh Court Justices credibility, that although they have made an "unpopular" decision, they looked at the facts as presented. 

 

For sure.  He should never have even been charged.   The DPP and police both knew there was no reasonable prospect of conviction (evident from the prosecutors evidence at the appeal hearing, along with the ultimate definitive conclusion that a jury had to find there was reasonable doubt). Both these agencies allowed themselves to be influenced by the prevailing hatred towards this guy.  There are plenty who think still think he should have been convicted, but you can only hold that view out of hatred.  Anyone who thinks he should have been convicted of these crimes either hasn't read the judgement or just don't care about the actual evidence (or lack thereof).

 

The real story is the failure of the legal system.  How did it allow itself to be pressured by media forces?   How was an man who is blatantly innocent of the allegations convicted, and how did two appeal judges uphold that conviction?  (It is clear from the sentencing comments the trial judge thought the verdict was unsafe, but his hands were tied).

 

These failures are only exposed as Pell depleted all his personal funds and had significant backing from supporters, such that he could hire a competent defence team.  The vast majority of people accused of any crime do not have that luxury.  How many others languish in a cell having been similarly railroaded?

[Olmate]

16 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

Lol, you really don't think the ABC vilified this guy over a protracted period?    Don't get me wrong, he probably did cover up abuse by other priests, in times when the world barely acknowledged that there was a problem with pedo priests.  But the ABC has conducted a hate campaign which very likely was a main driver that led a jury to convict, when as every judge on the high court stated, "a jury acting rationally should have had reasonable doubt."

 

There is no doubt the jury did not act rationally.  Or do you have an alternate explanation?

I,m sure the jury verdict was the correct one,Pell was guilty as charged.Then the truth became secondary, irrelevant even. Tell me this if as you rightly note, he covered up for many others, would he not be of that persuasion himself. Too many instances of his behaviour with boys and his Melbourne Solution was just icing on the cake ! But believe what you want 

[Mick501]

4 minutes ago, Olmate said:

I,m sure the jury verdict was the correct one,Pell was guilty as charged.Then the truth became secondary, irrelevant even. Tell me this if as you rightly note, he covered up for many others, would he not be of that persuasion himself. Too many instances of his behaviour with boys and his Melbourne Solution was just icing on the cake ! But believe what you want 

I believe you are not rational, and ample evidence to support it.

[RJRS1301]

15 minutes ago, Olmate said:

I,m sure the jury verdict was the correct one,Pell was guilty as charged.Then the truth became secondary, irrelevant even. Tell me this if as you rightly note, he covered up for many others, would he not be of that persuasion himself. Too many instances of his behaviour with boys and his Melbourne Solution was just icing on the cake ! But believe what you want 

 

Seven High Court Justices who reviwed the evidence from the trial, the appeal in Victoria disagree with you between them have hundreds of years legal learning and experience between them over a hundred years of precendents to guide them. However you are entitled to your opinion.

I am sure Richter QC would not have risked his reputation by acting ProBono had he thought that there was any shred of fact to convict. 

Pell would do anything to protect the church, and would never have reported anything to police which may brought the church to bad publicity. It is still hard for a person who has been sexually abused to be believed irrsepctive of gender. Many still hold the attirude that men/boys cannot be raped, and if it is less than anal rape, then "thats ok". If a lad is abused by a woman, then the attitude often remains "lucky him" 

 

One cannot convict by association, Pell has always been a controversial figure due to adherence to pomp and tradition, and his own arrogance.  He was not on trial for his arrogance.

His behaviour and guidelines and administration of the Melbourne Solution was all about protecting church coffers. His arrogance led him to believe he was the "chief inquisitor" similar to the bad old days of doctrinal courts

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by RJRS1301

[stouricks]

17 hours ago, mfd101 said:

Here is the relevant extract from the High Court's announcement today (not the full judgment which is not yet available as far as I am aware).

 

H I G H C O U R T O F A U S T R A L I APlease direct enquiries to Ben Wickham, Senior Executive Deputy RegistrarTelephone: (02) 6270 6893Fax: (02) 6270 6868 Email: enquiries@hcourt.gov.auWebsite: www.hcourt.gov.au PELLv THE QUEEN[2020] HCA 12Today, the High Courtgranted special leave to appealagainst a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoriaandunanimouslyallowed the appeal. The High Courtfound that the jury, acting rationallyon the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt astothe applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offencesfor which he was convicted,andordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place.

Why is it so small font with spaces between words missing?