Swamp donkey,

I am staggered by your level of ignorance, do you live under a rock or are you simply too dim to grasp the concepts involved. Here are some simple facts:

1 The high court (HC) is the highest court in the land and is not bound to hear any appeals or decisions of lower courts such as the Victorian supreme court whether the decision was unanimous or had a dissenting opinion. Before the HC will hear a case, the defence has to make a strong case that there was a manifest failure of law or process in the trial.

2 That all 7 of the HC judges independently came to the same conclusion that the trial was a serious miscarriage of justice and the strength of their decision casts serious doubt on the competence of the trial judge.

3 There is not a legal system in the western world that in a criminal trial will accept the uncorroborated word of one involved person as sufficient for a guilty verdict. The trial judge did just that and in doing so put the onus of proof onto the defendant.

shadyminister,

We don't live in an ideal perfect world where everybody is honest and trustworthy.

I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from.

You obviously believe judges to be honest and trustworthy.

History tells me differently.

And I think there is a big question mark hanging over the events surrounding Pell's appeal and subsequent acquittal.

Like I said, leave it to the historians and sociologists to work out.

shadyminister,

I found this bit of recent information that might be of interest to you:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/former-magistrate-bob-harrap-pleads-guilty-to-charges/12495224

So you can see now why people like me have concerns.

Swamp donkey,

That people cannot be entirely trusted is the basis for the successful appeal. The prosecution relied entirely on the personal statement of one witness that potentially stood to gain a huge financial payout in the event of a guilty verdict yet could not produce a scrap of corroborating evidence to verify the witnesses testimony.

This level of testimony would not be accepted as sufficient for a conviction in a criminal case anywhere in the western democracies, in fact even in a civil case where the onus of proof is far less this would generally be rejected.

Finally, whenever I see someone saying "there are still questions to be answered" this means that the person saying this has run out of any real questions and is resorting to vague innuendo.

Pell has been found innocent and is now in a position to sue Victoria for gross injustice.

shadyminister,

You are missing my point.

I think there is a big question mark hanging over the events that led to Pell's acquittal and I think that we need to wait until the historians and sociologists do their research and come up with their conclusions in order to get to the truth.

That's just the way things get done.

Surely you don't think you will get to the truth by asking lawyers what they think: out of the pseudo-intellectualism and into the pseudo-intellectualism and never the truth.

Asking a lawyer what's right in life is like asking a gaol prisoner to fix a hole in the prison fence.

Swamp donkey,

Really? what is the question? Or is this just feeble innuendo on your part?

Perhaps the question is why the prosecution of Pell was even allowed to proceed given its legal weakness. Note that a similar case against Shorten was dropped given insufficient evidence.