Thank You Banjo.

I still think that the trial by jury verdict should
have been the acceptable one . And it should also be the
one used in all sexual abuse crimes. And in Pell's case
it was also supported by a majority judgement of judges.

It should not have gone to the High Court. This is the area
where reforms have to be made for sexual abuse cases.

.

Yes, Foxy, I agree.

By the way, I see that of the seven justices of the High Court, four are right of centre and three are left :

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/29806-from-kirby-to-callinan-how-liberal-are-our-high-court-justices

.

It makes things even more difficult.

Banjo, Foxy,

It is blindingly clear that your understanding of the principles of law is absolutely zero.

"In many countries and under many legal systems, including common law and civil law systems the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. It is also an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11."

It is a protection of an individual against any excesses by the state.

That every single member of the most senior judges in the land both conservative and left whinge voted unanimously to overturn judgement would indicate that reform is due in the Victorian judicial system.

Paul1405,

I don't agree with everything Yuyutsu says about justice, but I do believe it is important to hear from others in terms of different perspectives, like the laws of nature (of which I agree with in principle). It's something many don't consider (the laws of nature). It is important also to encourage people to think differently, so they are not left stuck in some sort of a rut, something not a healthy experience.

I am also not satisfied with Banjo Patterson's view of justice. It is clear he wants people here to accept his view of justice alone, or you'll have no justice at all. Not a good pathway to go down in my view.

Banjo Patterson,

Your mixed messages here are doing you no credit. For example, you say:

<<It was clearly not the fault of the police investigators. Nor was it the fault of the honourable members of the judiciary. They all did their job properly. They all respected the law and the rules and regulations of the judicial process.>>

You then say in another post:

<<By the way, I see that of the seven justices of the High Court, four are right of centre and three are left>>

Not only is such a move aiming to discredit the judges in question that are part the High Court, but to further push your own (very limited) view of justice and what it should include.

If the High Court ruled differently here, you would take a completely different approach, call their decisions justice and say how great the High Court judges were and certainly not bring other matters into the debate like whether they are left/right of centre etc.

I mean you haven't done that here regarding decisions made by judges in Victoria, that being providing a link to if they are left/right of centre.

You must understand the reasons why the High Court exists and its importance, understand why the High Court decision was made here (in a complete sense), 7-0 and realise justice comes in many forms, more than just your own view of justice.

shadowminister,

It is your understanding of the principles of law
that is flawed as far as sexual abuse victims go.
The law, the unjust justice system that gives the
advantage to the abuser, in sexual abuse cases is
the problem with the current system in Australia.
Sexual abuse cases are complex and need to be looked
at differently. Currently victims are not given a chance
and the scales are tipped against them.

We are trying to look at ways in which this can be improved
for all concerned and not have the scales tipped in favour of
the abuser. Obviously that is difficult for you and some
others to understand.