 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | While I have some reservations about overturning jury verdicts, I'd say in this case the High Court has done exactly what they should do. |
I want to know what precedent this sets. Can we now expect a whole tidal wave of appeals against jury verdicts on the grounds that "someone thinks the jury got it wrong"? What is the point of trial by jury when a panel of judges can just throw the result out and decide it for themselves?
So my main concern is for the justice system and the effect this may have on it.
As to the particular case, I was always doubtful of the direct charges, but had no trouble at all in believing every word of the accusations that he stood by and did nothing time and time again, and that he was complicit in moving child abusers around the state so that they could escape the consequences of their actions and offend again. And again. That's worth 20 years in quod, every time. But it looks as though trial for those things will have to go to civil actions. |
On the other hand, one may well ask what the point of higher courts is if they can't throw out a jury's finding. I understand there are other reasons an appeal might be upheld, but it doesn't seem to be fundamentally wrong to me to have checks and balances in place for cases in which the jury may have gotten it wrong (as they do, of course, from time to time).
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | While I have some reservations about overturning jury verdicts, I'd say in this case the High Court has done exactly what they should do. |
I want to know what precedent this sets. Can we now expect a whole tidal wave of appeals against jury verdicts on the grounds that "someone thinks the jury got it wrong"? What is the point of trial by jury when a panel of judges can just throw the result out and decide it for themselves?
So my main concern is for the justice system and the effect this may have on it.
As to the particular case, I was always doubtful of the direct charges, but had no trouble at all in believing every word of the accusations that he stood by and did nothing time and time again, and that he was complicit in moving child abusers around the state so that they could escape the consequences of their actions and offend again. And again. That's worth 20 years in quod, every time. But it looks as though trial for those things will have to go to civil actions. |
I think the the appellate courts at State level will, in years to come, "distinguish" this case (that is, confine it to its facts and refuse to rely upon it as a precedent) - the difficulty this decision creates will arise every single time a person is convicted of any crime on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness in circumstances where there was valid alibi evidence. It won't likely ever be allowed to be a precedent for anything - although one can, I think, anticipate a rash of applications for leave to appeal being commenced in reliance on this case. In the next couple of decades, though, it will either be generally ignored or else treated as a mere exemplar of circumstances in which a jury verdict of guilt might be unsafe and unsatisfactory, without applying the reasoning. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Thanks P4S.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: |
I think the the appellate courts at State level will, in years to come, "distinguish" this case (that is, confine it to its facts and refuse to rely upon it as a precedent) - the difficulty this decision creates will arise every single time a person is convicted of any crime on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness in circumstances where there was valid alibi evidence. It won't likely ever be allowed to be a precedent for anything - although one can, I think, anticipate a rash of applications for leave to appeal being commenced in reliance on this case. . |
I'm not trying to be cute here, but that bolded part isn't a difficulty, for my (granted limited) understanding of the law, that would be the point.
Starting premise is supposed to be that a person is innocent until proven guilty. To Prove guilt at a criminal trial, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
To convict someone based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness when there are multiple sources to suggest reasonable alibi and when there are no patterns of behaviour or anything else to support the allegations should be extraordinarily difficult to do.
1 of the 3 appeal judges thought so, now the high court has found that unanimously.
More than happy for you to explain why my simplistic view is incorrect.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I haven't said much about this case since Pell was found guilty, but I'm not surprised by today's outcome.
The evidence the prosecution was relying on to convict Pell was very shaky, and reasonable doubt existed that the jury should have found him not guilty.
A lot of people won't like the decision, but legally it appears to be the correct one.
I think the thread title needs to be changed now.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2020/apr/07/cardinal-george-pell-high-court-decision-appeal-latest-verdict-live-news
| Quote: | The premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, says in a statement:
“I make no comment about today’s High Court decision.
But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse:
I see you.
I hear you.
I believe you.” |
I wish some of these people would be put on the spot and asked what exactly they mean when they say "I believe victims". Do they mean they believe the testimony of all of the people whom they believe or know are victims (in which case, that's just circular logic!), or that they believe all of the people who claim to have suffered abuse (in which case, their silence on friendly political figures like Bill Shorten or, in the US context, Joe Biden, with unresolved cases seems kind of damning)?
Either way, the unmistakeable subtext here is that Andrews believes Pell's accuser, i.e. he believes Pell is guilty despite the High Court judgement. Even if the courts fail us, we can rely on the premier to know the real truth of the matter – and not to just, say, take the temperature of public opinion and say something that sounds nice.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Puzzled by this headline:
https://theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156
| Quote: | | How George Pell won in the High Court on a legal technicality |
To my mind, and, I presume, most people’s, a legal technicality is something like a procedural error on the part of the prosecution, or some obscure law, that renders the whole case invalid. I don’t see how a rejection of a jury’s verdict (via a rejection of the Victorian appellate court’s decision to uphold it), can possibly be described as a "technicality", as opposed to a decision that strikes at the heart of the case’s merits.
(P4S, I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on this piece and whether you feel the authors’ characterisation of the ruling is accurate.)
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jezza wrote: | I haven't said much about this case since Pell was found guilty, but I'm not surprised by today's outcome.
The evidence the prosecution was relying on to convict Pell was very shaky, and reasonable doubt existed that the jury should have found him not guilty.
A lot of people won't like the decision, but legally it appears to be the correct one.
I think the thread title needs to be changed now. |
That might be your personal belief but it has nothing at all to do with the way the case was decided.
As is evident from the Court's reasons, the appeal proceeded "[u]pon the assumption that the jury assessed A's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable". Once one reaches that view, properly, it is inconceivable that the Court could conclude that Pell was not guilty. The High Court's reasoning is actually that there was other evidence that meant that the complainant's evidence could not be accepted as credible and reliable. It can't, of course, expose its reasoning in that way because that reasoning is legally impermissible. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2020/apr/07/cardinal-george-pell-high-court-decision-appeal-latest-verdict-live-news
| Quote: | The premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, says in a statement:
“I make no comment about today’s High Court decision.
But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse:
I see you.
I hear you.
I believe you.” |
I wish some of these people would be put on the spot and asked what exactly they mean when they say "I believe victims". Do they mean they believe the testimony of all of the people whom they believe or know are victims (in which case, that's just circular logic!), or that they believe all of the people who claim to have suffered abuse (in which case, their silence on friendly political figures like Bill Shorten or, in the US context, Joe Biden, with unresolved cases seems kind of damning)?
Either way, the unmistakeable subtext here is that Andrews believes Pell's accuser, i.e. he believes Pell is guilty despite the High Court judgement. Even if the courts fail us, we can rely on the premier to know the real truth of the matter – and not to just, say, take the temperature of public opinion and say something that sounds nice. |
Yeah, Danny Boy has done some good stuff and demonstrated some leadership recently, but this situation isn't one of them. Poor darts there I'm afraid.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Bruce Gonsalves
Joined: 05 Jul 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Makes me want to puke. I feel so sorry for Chrissie Foster and her kids. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The whole notion that this accusation against Pell formed in a vacuum is false. Others have made allegations against him but they didn't proceed to the point of criminal charges being laid.
If an accusers testimony is allowed as part of a criminal trial and can be used by a jury (or judge) to inform their verdict how is it right that the High Court simply dismisses it without viewing when forming their judgement?
By all accounts the accusers testimony was compelling and presented itself as being truthful.
The High Court certainly didn't dismiss the verbal testimony of the defence witnesses and used them seemingly as the basis for the reasonable doubt that lead to their decision.
I'm not as convinced the High Court should have given as much weight to the witness testimonies they seemingly have.
Was the accusation against Pell said to have occurred on a specific date or could the accuser only narrow it down to a small period of time?
Given the passage of time then I don't see how any witness can be entirely certain of Pell's movements on the day the abuse was alleged to have occurred.
Yes they could certainly provide testimony of what generally took place after Pell finished his homily and may have done so in good faith but can they be sure it always ran like clockwork, followed the same routine and within the same time frames?
I doubt it.
I guess my point is this.
If Pell was guilty of the allegations then it's likely he would share the same mindset of some pedophiles who fantasize, plan and then wait for an opportunity to arise. If the opportunity arose unexpectedly then the notion of possibly being caught and only having a short period of time to engage in abuse wouldn't necessarily overcome the sexual desire to offend and in some cases might only heighten that desire.
I don't know if Pell is guilty or innocent.
Only Pell and his accuser know for certain.
I will say however it's important to remember that Pell hasn't been found not guilty on the basis of fresh DNA, digital or eye witness evidence.
He's had his conviction quashed because the High Court believes enough reasonable doubt exists whereas a jury of his peers and 2 of 3 Victorian court of appeal Judges chose to believe his accuser.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | While I have some reservations about overturning jury verdicts, I'd say in this case the High Court has done exactly what they should do. |
I want to know what precedent this sets. Can we now expect a whole tidal wave of appeals against jury verdicts on the grounds that "someone thinks the jury got it wrong"? What is the point of trial by jury when a panel of judges can just throw the result out and decide it for themselves?
So my main concern is for the justice system and the effect this may have on it.
As to the particular case, I was always doubtful of the direct charges, but had no trouble at all in believing every word of the accusations that he stood by and did nothing time and time again, and that he was complicit in moving child abusers around the state so that they could escape the consequences of their actions and offend again. And again. That's worth 20 years in quod, every time. But it looks as though trial for those things will have to go to civil actions. |
I think the the appellate courts at State level will, in years to come, "distinguish" this case (that is, confine it to its facts and refuse to rely upon it as a precedent) - the difficulty this decision creates will arise every single time a person is convicted of any crime on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness in circumstances where there was valid alibi evidence. It won't likely ever be allowed to be a precedent for anything - although one can, I think, anticipate a rash of applications for leave to appeal being commenced in reliance on this case. In the next couple of decades, though, it will either be generally ignored or else treated as a mere exemplar of circumstances in which a jury verdict of guilt might be unsafe and unsatisfactory, without applying the reasoning. |
Coincidentally, my youngest sat her Juris Doctor “Evidence” exam this morning, well at least that was her alibi when I spoke with her.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | The whole notion that this accusation against Pell formed in a vacuum is false. Others have made allegations against him but they didn't proceed to the point of criminal charges being laid.....................................................................................
He's had his conviction quashed because the High Court believes enough reasonable doubt exists whereas a jury of his peers and 2 of 3 Victorian court of appeal Judges chose to believe his accuser. |
Swoop, have a read of the actual reasons for the decision
That explains how the accuser couldn't provide firm dates and how the limited number of events that could have fitted were narrowed down.
It also explains in detail how they came to the decision, my reading is that the testimony of the witnesses should have been sufficient to create at least reasonable doubt. When you look through it, it may not have been impossible but it would be improbable that what was alleged could have taken place
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Puzzled by this headline:
https://theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156
| Quote: | | How George Pell won in the High Court on a legal technicality |
To my mind, and, I presume, most people’s, a legal technicality is something like a procedural error on the part of the prosecution, or some obscure law, that renders the whole case invalid. I don’t see how a rejection of a jury’s verdict (via a rejection of the Victorian appellate court’s decision to uphold it), can possibly be described as a "technicality", as opposed to a decision that strikes at the heart of the case’s merits.
(P4S, I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on this piece and whether you feel the authors’ characterisation of the ruling is accurate.) |
I'm reluctant to engage in much detail with this because people seem to be focused on whether the decision is "right" or "wrong" according to their view of whether Pell "should" or "shouldn't" have been found guilty. By contrast, I am satisfied that the Court's decision is, in all relevant legal senses, incorrect, irrespective of whether Pell did or didn't do that of which he stood accused. Accordingly, I expect that what interests me and what interests the rest of you will pass like ships in the night.
That said, I've just seen your post and skimmed this piece. I don't know whether the language of "legal technicality" is apt or useful but I see that the author has, in substance, picked up the point I made in my reply to Jezza, immediately above.
Thus, the author writes:
[The Court] also found that despite the complainant’s credibility and reliability, the evidence of the witnesses required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to Pell’s guilt.
It is difficult to reconcile this outcome with the fact this is exactly the conclusion the jury did make. The jury’s conclusion was further supported by the Appeal Court majority judgment’s careful and extensive evaluation of that same evidence.
The High Court has given claims about lack of opportunity an elevated technical legal status that outweighs the jury’s belief in the complainant’s testimony and their evident discounting of Pell’s claimed lack of opportunity. This appears perilously close to retrial by the court.
A jury found the cardinal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five offences.
In doing so, the jury assessed the testimony and credibility of the complainant. They also considered the strength of the claims made by the cardinal about the timing of his whereabouts, who was with him at the relevant times and whether the offences could have happened.
The jury saw and heard all the evidence, in the context of the trial. It was their legal function to make this decision.
Careful analysis of the full reasoning of the High Court is required to fully assess it. But, for now, this extraordinary outcome is strange justice indeed.
That - in my respectful opinion - is why this case will be relegated to the status of a marginal-note in Australia's jurisprudence - every time an appellate court is presented with this authority in the future, the presiding judges are going to have to confine this decision to its facts because, otherwise, convictions will be at risk of being routinely overturned whenever there is a genuine contest of fact between credible witnesses.
Ultimately, the Court should not, in my view, have entertained the application. It routinely refuses to hear appeals from people who seem to have suffered the most egregious injustices on the basis that there is no sufficient point of general principle in issue. One can't help but wonder if it would have done so here if the case had concerned anyone of less celebrity or repute. Here, it seems to me, the Court has bent over backwards to find a point of principle to justify it entertaining the appeal and then has actually set about to re-try the case as if it were the jury. That isn't the High Court's job. It will, in my opinion, have to spend the next 20 or 30 years walking this one back.
Step away from the facts of this or any other case and ask yourself this question: "If (a) a jury preferred the evidence of the complainant to the evidence of all other witnesses; and (b) it was logically open to the jury to do so; and it is not the High Court's task to re-open a jury's assessment, precisely how could the High Court reach a decision rejecting the jury's conclusion?"
It may well be that the original conviction was incorrect. It is not the High Court's constitutional function to overturn incorrect verdicts. It's task is to declare the law. Yet, no point of principle was decided here, at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
