| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^ just what I said but mine was without the waffle đ
_________________
âI even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didnât keep âem under long enoughâ Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
No, you're right â your fellatio joke had a lot less build-up. 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | No, you're right â your fellatio joke had a lot less build-up. |
Apart from being outrageously immature I thought it was apt given the circumstances
_________________
âI even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didnât keep âem under long enoughâ Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The transcript of today's pronouncement is at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCATrans//2019/217.html
To save you looking it up, this is what is says, omitting formal and irrelevant parts:
Application for special leave to appeal
GORDON J
EDELMAN J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2019, AT 9.34 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
GORDON J: In this application, Justice Edelman and I order that the application for special leave to appeal to this Court from the judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria given and made on 21 August 2019 be referred to a Full Court of this Court for argument as on an appeal. The parties will be made aware of the directions necessary for undertaking that hearing.
AT 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED (my emphasis added)
So, it's going to be argued "as on an appeal" - ie, full hearing of the appeal, not the 2 x twenty minute super-overs that normally apply to the oral hearing of a special leave application. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | Won't it be very short then? |
Under a minute, according to the transcript. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | ^ just what I said but mine was without the waffle đ |
You were more accurate and what you said did not involve any speculative flying of kites. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | K wrote: | | Won't it be very short then? |
Under a minute, according to the transcript. |
What a shame we missed the broadcast! 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This is very frustrating for me - given my position, I do not feel that it is proper for me to set out my views as to the rationale of the referral but, on the other hand, I'm reading a whole lot of speculative tripe (the media, not you good folk).
Perhaps some of you might like to consider this question from the point of view of the Court - what line(s) might have been likely to be adopted by the Pell-support-camp if special leave had been refused without reasons today? For bonus points, work as many of the following phrases into your answer as you can: "without the benefit of full argument", "only two judges of the Court", "completed high school at Scotch College in Perth, Western Australia" and "received her secondary schooling at St Mary's Anglican Girls' School and Presbyterian Ladies' College". |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Just to be clear, are there some factual errors there? Because I have to admit that I'm otherwise struggling to get my head around the "as on an appeal" concept.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm not sure I understand your question but the "as on an appeal" bit means that they're going to set down the special leave application to be heard as if it were the hearing of a full appeal. So, Pell might ultimately get some form of shrift, but come what may, he won't be able say it was "short".
In that respect, there is unlikely to be any two-stage hearing procedure by the Full Court - it will almost certainly hear everything at once and decide, given what it has heard, whether or not leave should be granted and, if leave is granted, whether the appeal should be allowed or dismissed.
On the procedural point as to whether leave is refused or not, it normally matters at the intermediate appellate level for technical reasons that will strike you (rightly) as entirely arcane. It doesn't really matter in the same procedural way at the High Court (since there is no further avenue of appeal) but I think the Court's decision today probably foreshadows that the Court intends to give detailed written reasons, whatever the outcome (including if it refuses special leave). |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | ...
This is very frustrating for me - given my position, I do not feel that it is proper for me to set out my views as to the rationale of the referral but...
... |
But isn't that (setting out their views) what people like Michael Bradley (there are many quoted in this thread; he's just the most recent) do? Do you feel they shouldn't write media articles or be rent-a-quotes?
Here's another media attempt at explanation:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/george-pell-s-latest-legal-fight-your-questions-answered-20191113-p53a9z.html |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
High Court decision on George Pell is extraordinary but sensible
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/high-court-decision-on-george-pell-is-extraordinary-but-sensible/news-story/13c60869f95eed618e2233d2ce8d5c8c
"Legal insiders have described the Weinberg judgment as an effective letter to the High Court, urging it to seriously examine the Pell convictions.
Weinberg was the criminal expert on the Court Of Appeal.
This may or may not have been what fuelled todayâs High Court decision.
The High Court, by agreeing to consider the matter next year, has simply enhanced the standing of the legal system, with potentially profound implications for child sex abuse cases.
After all, Pell was convicted on the word of one altar boy in what many believe are unlikely circumstances.
Stripping away the venom of the culture wars, it has always been possible that Pell offended.
The decision of the three courts tends to confirm this.
However, was it beyond reasonable doubt, based on the evidence, that Pell assaulted the boys in those circumstances?
This is why the High Courtâs decision to look next year at the case should be seen as a welcome development." |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Or not. More speculative tripe. âThis may or may not have been ....â Really, if they have nothing to say, they might best not say anything.
Go back and answer the question I posed. You will find that your answer, however ill-equipped you might think you are to answer that question, much more informative than the sort of ridiculous, baseless pulp being peddled about this over the last the 11 months in the press. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The hearing of the High Court special leave application/appeal is set for 11 and 12 March 2020.
A link on the Court's web-site to the page from which you can access the respective submissions and chronology is: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case_m112-2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
