Pauliar,

Once again you are lying. I think anyone should assume that anything you post is a lie.

I will use small words that even a stupid greenie can understand:

This is more logical than legal. Unless Pell admitted that he knew something, a court or judge cannot state that he did as it is impossible to know what someone knows. The judge might believe he knows or that he should know, but he cannot state that he did.

This is why no one can be charged with lying under oath for stating "I don't recall" as it can never be proved a lie.

Simple enough even for a village idiot.

shadowminister,

Pell said that sexual abuse was of "no interest" to him
and that attacks on the church he considered worse then
sexual abuse. Which says a great deal about his character.
His record of abuse with accusations goes back to the 1960s.
And he was involved in the pedophile network in Ballarat.

The man does not have a clean slate. He's now dead. Stop
defending him. Let history be the judge. His record speaks
for itself. There were enough witnesses who came forward.

Foxy,

Now you are lying, there was no solid evidence that Pell was involved in paedophilia. Unlike Doig the green's federal candidate.

shadowminister,

Evidence was provided by the Royal Commission which
tarnished Pell's legacy. Not only was Pell conscious
child sexual abuse by clergy but priests were moved
from parish to parish. Pell went to court with Ridsdale
and offered Ridsdale's nephew a bribe not to go to the
police. Apart from Ridsdale there were other priests -
Peter Searson, Leo Fitzgerald, Ted Dowlan to mention
just a few.

The fact remains that Pell was sentenced to six years
in jail in 2019 on 5 charges of sexual penetration
and molestation of children aged 13 which judge Kidd
described as "brazen and forcible."

After spending 13 months in prison Pell was released
not because he was innocent - but because there wasn't
the required amount of proof. Many of the victims had
died and were unable to testify. Pell never testified.

I have nothing further to add. Thankfully the man can
do no more harm. It's now up to the church to rectify
the harm that was done to ensure it doesn't happen again
in the future to others.

Foxy,

You refer to decisions made at a state level, but then ignore the High Court ruling as if it has no value, and from that dumb down the importance of the High Court of Australia.

As the below points out, with link below:

"The High Court is often referred to as the ‘guardian’ of both the Constitution and the rule of law in Australia. Former Chief Justice Murray Gleeson succinctly described the complex relationship between the law, the government, the judiciary, and the public, when he said:

The importance of the rule of law lies partly in the power it denies to people and to governments, and in the discipline to which it subjects all authority. That denial, and that discipline, are conditions of the exercise of power, which in a democracy, comes from the community which all government serves. Judicial prestige and authority are at their greatest when the judiciary is seen by the community, and the other branches of government, to conform to the discipline of the law which it administers. The rule of law is not enforced by an army. It depends upon public confidence in lawfully constituted authority. The judiciary claims the ultimate capacity to decide what the law is. Public confidence demands that the rule of law be respected, above all, by the judiciary."

http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/about-the-high-court/why-is-the-high-court-important/

We must accept High Court decisions and move on. If people feel there is a need for change, then they can take action for (in their view) a better outcome.

Hi Nathan,

The Pell case as Banjo has already pointed out earlier
highlights the very difficult tensions in Australian criminal
law between our society's right to seek justice for historical
sexual abuse offences and a defendant's right to have their
guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Given as we know that sexual abuse often happens in private and
within relationships of trust, cases of historic sexual abuse
are usually alleged by one witness who is also the purported
victim.

If the evidence of one witness, who is also a victim, cannot
suffice to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then what
is the likelihood of historic sexual abuse claims ever
succeeding?

Further, when is it the court's place to decide that 12 members
of the public MUST be mistaken?

The Pell case needs to be analyzed and assessed especially in the
role of the HIgh Court in hearing criminal matters.

There appears to be a case for questioning the appropriateness
and implications of a High Court substituting a decision made
bu a jury with its own finding of what it thinks is rational.
Will one "Witness of Truth," ever be enough to be held
compelling enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

I agree with Banjo the current legal system as it stands needs
to be reformed in sexual abuse cases.

See you on another discussion. I have nothing further to say.