.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

« He died without a single charge against him. His record is clean … »
.

Not so, shadowminister, in 2022, the father of choirboy B who was allegedly abused by Pell launched legal action against Pell and the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne. In August that year, the case was allowed to proceed :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-24/catholic-church-george-pell-court-case-can-continue/101366566

Cardinal Bell died on 10 January 2023 knowing full well that he had that “single charge” both against himself and the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.

His record is not clean. Too late now. He has already gone down in history as having been convicted by a jury of twelve on five counts of sexual assault of two thirteen-year-old choirboys in St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne conviction that was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Victoria before being quashed by the High Court of Australia.

The guilty verdict was based on the testimony of the one surviving choirboy, judged by all courts as reliable – which even the High Court did not contest.

The High Court overturned Pell’s conviction, declaring that the jury should have had what it (the High Court) considered to be a “reasonable doubt” – without any precision as to what exactly it considered to be a “reasonable doubt”.

As I previously indicated on this thread, not only is there no universal definition of what constitutes the legal term “reasonable doubt”, it is even highly recommended that judges abstain from offering one to the jury.

Consequently, “reasonable doubt” is a purely subjective notion, specific to each individual. The “reasonable doubts” of each of the twelve members of the jury are no less valid than those of the seven members of the jury.

Interestingly, the trial jury and the High Court both produced unanimous decisions – but, of course, the jury outnumbered the High Court 12 to 7.
.

As for your recurrent comment on “kangaroo courts”, shadowminister, I see that the OED indicates that a “kangaroo court” is one that is “so controlled as to render a fair trial impossible”.

Never seen that, shadowminister ?

.

BTW:

Pell died having been found guilty by a court of 12
supported by a majority judgement - and the court of public
opinion. He did not die with a clean slate.
The High Court let him off on a legal technicality - it did not
exonerate him. His slate was not clean by any stretch of the
imagination. It was a mis-carriage of justice!

.

Oops, I meant :

Consequently, “reasonable doubt” is a purely subjective notion, specific to each individual. The “reasonable doubts” of each of the twelve members of the jury are no less valid than those of the seven members of the High Court.

Sorry about that.

.

Foxy,

The high court exonerated him. Look it up. You pegged him as guilty even before the trial started yet claimed that Shorten was exonerated. It would appear that for you, guilt is dependent on your political status.

Banjo,

Reasonable doubt is far from being purely subjective. There are very clear precedents and guidelines that judges should know and educate the jurors. The trial judge failed to do this either through incompetence or bias. The High court's unanimous judgement was damning to this twit.

"The hostility of victims and parents of child sexual abuse towards Pell is understandable given the crimes of the church and the desecration of the sacred. Pell should have displayed far more sensitivity towards the victims, but it is time to recognise his innocence of the charges laid against him.

Pell was the target of a preposterous campaign of vilification, charges and conviction. He was subject to a “Get Pell” investigation by Victoria Police, a prosecution that should never have been brought, and a failure by the highest court in Victoria, and received justice only when his case was removed from Victoria and went to the High Court, where a 7-0 judgment found in Pell’s favour.

Even then, the denialists were everywhere. Critics falsely claimed the High Court decision was based on a technicality. Victorian Premier Dan Andrews, having attacked Tony Abbott for visiting Pell in jail, defied the court, saying victims had to be believed – confirming he didn’t believe in justice and a fair trial in Victoria."

shadowminister,

We have already covered all of this with you.
You believe one thing we believe another.
Pell is now dead and buried. We should all
hope that things will improve for sexual abuse
victims in this country. Let us all work towards
trying to achieve that end. In which case something
positive would have come out of all this.

That would be a worthwhile aim for us all.
I've written to so many people begging for changes to
be made. Hopefully someone, somewhere will pay attention.