shadowminister,

No, in Australian criminal law, a verdict is either 'guilty' or 'not guilty', and 'not guilty' does not equate to 'innocent'.

'Not guilty' means the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A 'not guilty' verdict reflects the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', but it does not serve as a positive assertion of innocence. Nor does it equate to general state of innocence, if equating a more general state of innocence with 'not guilty' is what you are attempting to do here to justify your earlier claim.

There can of course be other outcomes, such as a dismissal or a mistrial, but these also never serve as a positive assertion of innocence, or preserve a general state of innocence.

As for Shorten and Pell, their cases were distinct and unrelated - one of which we don’t know the specifics. So, again, we cannot determine if a double-standard occurred in the reviewing of the two cases.

I often wonder what lawyers, judges and other professionals who are actually involved in these decisions, and qualified to make them, would think of this ignorant blather from half a dozen anonymous windbags and graduates of Google and the mainstream media.

We have a 24/7 media cycle and we see all sorts of
dark unseemly characters in the stories dominating
the headlines. The past couple of weeks have been
awash with some very hard hitting news and the recent
allegations against Alan Jones which are still untested
in a court of law.

Yet these allegations as we can see from the news coverage
have ensnared the most ardent prosecutors of public debate.
From legislators, commentators, reporters, media personalities,
politicians, policymakers, and members of the general public.

This case has attracted attention because the allegations go
to someone who's been at the very heart of public life in the
media and politics. It's understandable that the allegations will
be newsworthy and attract so much attention from a vast spectrum
of commentators especially on discussion forums such as ours.

Syoksya,

Actually in Aus Law innocent is synonymous with not guilty hence the "innocent until proven guilty"

Scottish Law includes a verdict of not proven but not English Law or Australian law.

There is never any need to prove innocence in Australian Law.

Foxy,

The allegations against Jones have not been tested in any way let alone in court. I wonder how many are hoping for a $2.4m taxpayer payout from Labor.

shadowminister,

As lawyer working in Australia, I have reasonable grasp of Australian law.

Your claim that "innocent" is synonymous with "not guilty" in Australian law is not quite complete and suggests that you are confusing the legal definitions and the colloquial use of these terms.

In legal terms, "not guilty" is a verdict that means the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not necessarily confirm the defendant's innocence. Rather, it indicates that there was insufficient evidence to meet the stringent standards of criminal proof. The "not guilty" verdict is a cornerstone of the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental principle in Australian law, as well as in many other legal systems. This principle asserts that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.

On the other hand, "innocent" in its everyday usage implies the absence of wrongdoing. Legally, however, courts do not declare a defendant "innocent." Instead, they determine whether the evidence is sufficient to surpass the high threshold of proving guilt. The distinction here is subtle but significant. A "not guilty" verdict does not equate to a declaration of innocence; it simply means that the evidence was not strong enough to convict.

While innocence and ‘not guilty’ intersect in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," in a strict legal context, they are not synonymous. The legal system operates on the presumption of innocence as a safeguard against wrongful conviction, but this presumption is a starting point for legal proceedings, not a final declaration of a person's moral or factual innocence.

//There is never any need to prove innocence in Australian Law.//

I don't know where you get the idea that I need this explained to me. This has been implied consistently throughout my comments here.

Shadow Minister,

I have already stated several times -
that the recent allegations concerning Alan Jones
have not been tested in a court of law.
I also do not understand your need to
repeat this for me.