Post-truth mhaze,

From the judgement you linked to the decision of the majority included:

“It is sufficient for present purposes to say that we saw nothing in A’s answers under cross-examination to suggest that he had been caught out or had tripped himself up. “

“A further indication of A’s credibility, in our view, was his admitted uncertainty about a number of matters which, if the story had been invented or was an entrenched fantasy, he might have been expected to describe with confidence. “

“Throughout his evidence, A came across as someone who was telling the truth. He did not seek to embellish his evidence or tailor it in a manner favourable to the prosecution. As might have been expected, there were some things which he could remember and many things which he could not. And his explanations of why that was so had the ring of truth.”

“The impression we gained from reading the transcript of A’s cross-examination reinforced the impression we had gained from watching the recording of him giving evidence. Nothing about his answers under cross-examination suggested that he was concocting, or embellishing, or ‘fantasising’. On the contrary, both the content of what he said and the way in which he said it — including the language he used— appeared to us to be entirely authentic.”

“Nothing about A’s account of the events suggested that it was either fabricated or a product of his imagination. “

SR was convinced by A's testimony even though there was zero corroborating evidence. That A could have been carefully coached and lying through his teeth eluded him. Millions of people have been scammed by well-spoken conmen whom they "believed". There is a sucker born every minute.

The Victorian judges should be sacked or re-educated on evidentiary law.

Many of us find it difficult to reconcile the High Court's
decision given the fact that a jury made a difficult
conclusion which was further supported by the Appeal Court
majority judgement's careful and extensive evaluation
of the same evidence.

A jury found the Cardinal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
5 offences. In doing so the jury assessed the testimony and
credibility of the complainant. The jury saw and heard all the
evidence of the trial. It was their legal function to make this
decision.

Careful analysis of the full reasoning of the High Court is
required to fully assess their outcome.

But this extraordinary outcome is strange justice indeed.

Pell may have won on a legal technicality
but in contrast the complainant was found to
be believed by a jury, by a majority
judgement and by a substantial body of public opinion.

Standard SR there.....cherry-pick some quotes and pretend they are the whole story.

Those who read AND understood (sorry to leave you out Foxy) the HC ruling (remember it was 7-0), would know that., although the HC found person 'A' to have been probably convincing to the jury, that the jury should have used the 'compounding improbabilities' in A's story to have reached a decision of reasonable doubt. You know, like the law requires.

But in the two tier justice system that is/was Andrew's Victoria, notions of western justice no longer count. Thankfully, the innocent still, for the moment, are able to appeal to people outside the Victorian system and receive their due justice.

Foxy,

Pell was freed on the same "legal technicality" that freed Shorten. There wasn't sufficient evidence for a conviction.

The DPP's and the presiding judge on the trial's responsibility was to decide whether the evidence was sufficient for a conviction. So too was it the duty of the appellate judges.

The unanimous decision of the 7 most senior judges in the high court was essentially that the Vic judges had been negligent/incompetent in their duties.

That you are struggling with HC applying the law says much about you.

Shadow Minister,

Shorten was never put on trial. The police said there was
not a case to answer. In Pell's case there was. He was found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of not one - but 5 offences
and that was further supported by the Appeal Court majority
judgement's careful and extensive evaluation of the
evidence.

I trust that judgement as I trust my own judgement.
What you believe does not matter. I know the truth and that
is all that matter to me.

I will not be responding to you any further.