I thought the folloeing opinion piece may be of interest.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-cardinal-and-mr-anonymous/10874492

However he does not any explanation as to why the accusers statements cannot be revealed. Or why the jury did not abide by the judges directions.

Nor does he tell us when the changes to evidence came into place, as this conviction makes it clear that an accused person now does have to prove his innocence and the prosecution can get away with mere allegations.

Interesting to know when it changed from 'innocent til proven guilty' and the precedent now set. How long before the changes pertaining to evidence required creep into other aspects of criminal law.

Henry L,

"Interesting to know when it changed from 'innocent til proven guilty' and the precedent now set. How long before the changes pertaining to evidence required creep into other aspects of criminal law."

A long time back, persons accused of X and against whom an AVO is sought are automatically presumed guilty and the police, by law, must act accordingly.

When the then Shooters' Party managed to have one aspect of the law changed to force the prosecution to prove guilt rather than the accused have to prove their innocence there was an outcry, particularly from the Greens in NSW, pandemonium was predicted because of this outrageous presumption of innocence.

Foxy,

Then we're both right; contentious American spellings are usually original English'

Phonetic rendering of modern English is often close to Anglo-Saxon in which every syllable is pronounced.

Is Mise,

And where do English language roots come from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English

Dear Steele,

I just want to say Thank You so much for getting
involved and standing up for me. Thank You for having
my back. I am so grateful to know I have someone in
my corner on this forum ready to come to my defense.
It means a great deal. I think it will benefit others
and make people think twice about what should or
should not be tolerated.

Dear HenryL,

You write;

“Nor does he tell us when the changes to evidence came into place, as this conviction makes it clear that an accused person now does have to prove his innocence and the prosecution can get away with mere allegations.”

You seem to be continuing conflate allegation and testimony. The latter in law, “is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury.”

The testimony in this case was given over a period of three solid days and undoubtedly tested through vigorous cross examination. As such is constitutes admissible evidence and in considering this evidence the jury decided that a verdict of guilty was appropriate.

By having Pell not give evidence in his defence the legal team obviously judged it would not assist and may well have been detrimental to his case. It was their decision to let the case be decided on the evidence presented by the victim alone.

Further you have not addressed the fact that there are many abusing priests who are now in jail because of testimonies just like this one, where there has been no other corroborating evidence, and where they have been brought to account many years after the abuse took place. I ask again do you judge all these convictions as unsafe and unjust?

Dear Foxy,

"is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy, vulgar, obscene, profane or which may harass or cause distress or inconvenience to, or incite hatred of, any person."

I think the rules are clear and while things can get pretty willing and some (even myself) can skate on thin ice there are posts which are just well beyond the pale, especially given the history of particular authors.

I am happy to call them out when they occur.

Steely, and so am I, and regularly do.