shadowminister,

We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

I simply can't understand how a unanimous jury verdict
of guilty, further supported by a Court of Appeal majority
of two judges, could be overturned by a High Court
on a suspect application of a legal principle. But I guess
the law is the law. Justice is another story. That's why
the statue is depicted wearing a blind-fold.

Why didn't the High Court ask - whether the Cardinal had
committed the offences? The findings of Pell's behaviour
in Ballarat by the Royal Commission were horrific.

Pell is being judged harshly over his behaviour and his
protection of the Catholic Church.

Anyway, I guess the man earned all of his promotions.
But at what cost to others?

The NSW government
has ruled out offering a state funeral for Cardinal Pell.
The Prime Minister has not yet confirmed whether he will
be attending the Cardinal's funeral in Sydney. Undoubtedly
the former PMs Tony Abbott and John Howard will attend.

A memorial service was held
for the Cardinal in Ballarat - many who came prayed for the
victims of sexual abuse and their families. Ballart has a
record of suicides due to sexual abuse. It's also known as the
pedophile capital of Australia.

As one church member stated - "I'm not here to mourn Cardinal
Pell. I'm glad the gargoyle is dead."

Innocent or guilty? I dare say a higher authority will now judge
the man.

I don't know enough about this issue re the claims of individuals made re George Pell (so I'm not commenting there), but there are things I do have an issue or question with here.

1. The role of juries. Here's another take on that issue from someone else: http://theconversation.com/can-juries-still-deliver-justice-in-high-profile-cases-in-the-age-of-social-media-193843

A Media Watch program gives a good overview of the media coverage re the case, let alone what went out via social media and Facebook broadly.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/pell/12166274

2. George Pell having to spend about 400 days in prison. In principle, people should not be imprisoned. We have seen so many people internationally put in prison for acts they did not commit. Prison should only be a last resort.

3. People questioning the high court decision. The decisions made by the high court are final in Australia. In this case it was a 7-0, unanimous decision. We also had the Mabo decision made by the high court also. We can't pick and choose here.

Finally....

4. Lindy Chamberlain saw the public turn on her, with a decision made seeing her spend three years in prison. A later coroner's inquiry saw things differently.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/12/dingo-baby-azaria-lindy-chamberlain

Australia must be a place where innocent until proven guilty is paramount and human rights are held high at all times.

shadowminister,

Bollocks.

It wasn't because of a "complete lack of verifiable evidence" at all. It was because "the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite
standard of proof".

Very big bloody difference.

Hi Nathan,

Cardinal had the best legal team that money could buy.
He was given every opportunity to present his case
and was treated more than fairly. He was not asked to
testify. He was able to dictate the terms of the
proceedings. Yet a unanimous jury gave the verdict of
guilty, which was further supported by a Court of Appeal
majority of two judges - and hence he ended up in jail.

Cardinal Pell was treated fairly according to the laws
of this country. A High Court decision did not find him
innocent. The Cardinal got off on a legal technicality.
On a suspect application of a legal principle. And was
released from jail. Not many people would get that sort
of hearing or decision. In his case - he was a lucky man.
an important man in society - important enough with the
right connections and influences - to be able to do that.

We should feel sorry for the victims - of the clergy that
he protected. Not of him being treated with special
privileges.

Foxy,

So many of your points in your last post are so contradictory to each other, they make no sense. For example, you say:

<<Cardinal had the best legal team that money could buy.>> and then:

<<Yet a unanimous jury gave the verdict of guilty>>.

Well clearly that legal team didn't achieve much and was a waste of money. Yet the high court of Australia took a different position, so that legal team was clearly a better one. Not a position of mine, just a reflection based on your comments.

Secondly, you didn't reply to any of my points about:

1. The roles of juries in a day and age where digital media and Facebook is so readily available.

2. People spending time in prison. People have done so internationally, no crime committed. This has included people like Lindy Chamberlain.

3. Questioning high court decisions. Mabo was fine, no questions from me, same here re George Pell, decision 7-0.

If you don't like our court/legal system, by all means advocate for change but realise innocent until proven guilty must remain a core principle and human rights is important.

Hi Nathan,

It is important for the public to understand the legal
process and the key issues. For many people in this country
it is hard to understand how the unanimous jury verdicts of
guilty, further supported by a Court of Appeal majority of
two judges, could be overturned by a High Court.

The High Court decision did not find Cardinal Pell innocent.
He got off on a legal technicality. And this will undermine
confidence in the legal system, especially in child sexual
abuse prosecutions.

I am not going to argue with you any further. Because the
Cardinal's case was exceptionally complex. The High Court
decided that in the Cardinal's earlier appeal an error was
made about the nature of the correct legal principle in
their application. The Cardinal won on a legal technicality
but he was not believed by a jury, by a majority judgement and
by a substantial body of public opinion. The complainant was.