Banjo,

Saying reasonable doubt should be 95% shows that you have zero concepts of the term reasonable doubt.

In Pell's trial, there is always a chance that the accuser is lying, especially the one about to sue the church and for whom a guilty verdict is worth $ms irrespective of how convincing his story is.

A competent judge should have recognised this.

shadowminister,

The jury did not base their guilty verdict on public
opinion. They based it on what was presented in court and
on the testimony of a claimant they found believable,
as well as Pell's past record of abuse and behaviour in protecting
abusers - which speaks for itself. The claimant was believable.
Pell was not.

Foxy,

As you said their verdict was based on belief, not evidence.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

1. « Saying reasonable doubt should be 95% shows that you have zero concepts of the term reasonable doubt. »
.

So far as I am aware, shadowminister, there is no universal definition of the legal term “beyond reasonable doubt”.

To clarify matters, I interpret the term “on the balance of probability” to mean that the level of certainty of guilt required for conviction in civil cases must be “more than 50%”. In other words, “it is more likely than not”.

I interpret the term “beyond reasonable doubt” to mean that the level of certainty required for conviction of guilt in criminal cases must be “more than 95%”. In other words, “it is almost certain”.

My understanding is that judges are well-advised not to attempt to define these terms for the members of the jury as it opens the door to the possibility of appeal of the verdict that ensues. It is best they leave it to each member of the jury to decide for themselves what is reasonable and what is not.

As a matter of fact, I read recently that in a notable case in 1988 (The Queen v. Britten), the Supreme Court of South Australia reaffirmed the South Australian rule that any attempt to define the term "a reasonable doubt" for the jury will result in a mistrial.
.

As you declare that I have “zero concepts of the term reasonable doubt”, shadowminister, I presume you consider that you fare much better and have many more concepts of "reasonable" than I have.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to demonstrate the truth of that affirmation, shall we say : “beyond reasonable doubt” ?

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

2. « In Pell's trial, there is always a chance that the accuser is lying, … a competent judge should have recognised this. »
.

Though the jury may not have considered Pell guilty “without the slightest doubt”, it did consider that he was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” – which was sufficient, in the eyes of the law, for him to be convicted.

The jury’s decision was forged (formed) in the courtroom with all the actors present. It considered that the complainant (designated as “A”) was “a compellingly truthful witness”. The defendant, Pell, remained silent throughout the trial – which was his own free choice and legal right.

The High Court’s review was based solely on the written accounts of the trial court and of the Supreme Court of Victoria. It focused on the technical validity of the jury’s verdict of guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”, and disavowed it, declaring that the jury should have had a reasonable doubt, thus quashing the convictions.

Artificial intelligence could have done that in a few seconds and at very little cost to the Australian taxpayer.

All we have achieved is a logical result based on the letter of the law – but that alone does not qualify as justice.

It is the human element that is missing, the human faculty of discernment.

That is why I am more inclined to favour, in this particular case, the findings of the jury rather than those of the High Court.

.

.

Yes, shadowminister, it was the human faculty of discernment that the jury employed in reaching its decision and the High Court chose to ignore.

.