Joe,

We do not know the entirety of the evidence that
was presented both to the jury or the judges. It has
not been fully disclosed. The facts however are that
a jury unanimously found Pell guilty and as did the
majority of judges based on the evidence presented.
They made it quite clear that there was no element of
doubt in the jury's decision and the judges upheld
that decision.

If the Law can be stretched to allow conviction based on an allegation for one type of crime then it will not be long before the principle (or lack thereof) will be extended to other crimes.

Much has been made of the jury and the Judges examining the religious dress, but did they put them on?

I once wore the whole outfit on four occasions when playing the part of a priest in an amateur play (three evening performances as well as a matinee), and they are hard to move,
Anyone wearing them for any length of time would be well advised to limit the intake of moisture beforehand and to urinate a couple of times, if possible, before appearing in public.

Dear o sung wu,

“In assessing whether a verdict is unsafe or unreasonable, the court recognises that the jury had the benefit of seeing the witnesses and is primarily responsible for determining guilt or innocence. This ground of appeal does not allow a party to substitute trial by a court of appeal for trial by jury (M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63; Jones v R (1997) 191 CLR 439).”

Further one must of course give due regard to the difference between an appeal court and a jury.

Form Dawson in Whitehorn (29 [1983] HCA 42; (1983)

"In particular, a court of appeal does not usually have the
opportunity to assess the worth of a witness's evidence by seeing and hearing that evidence given. Moreover, the jury performs its function within the atmosphere of the particular trial which it may not be possible to reproduce upon appeal. These considerations point to important differences between the functions of a jury and those of a court of appeal. A jury is able, and is required, to evaluate the evidence in a manner in which a court of appeal cannot."

This was from a High Court case in 1994 and is current precedent as I understand it. It involved a man charged with sexual penetration of his 13 yo daughter.

“Given the nature of the case, the verdicts can only be held to
be unsafe and unsatisfactory if the complainant's evidence is brought into doubt. Her evidence is uncorroborated. This, of itself, is of no importance, but where evidence is wholly uncorroborated, discrepancies and inconsistencies may assume greater significance than would otherwise be the case. Even so, corroboration or lack thereof is only one of many considerations which bear on the evaluation of evidence. And in this case the fact that the complainant's evidence was coherent and concise is a consideration which weighs in favour of its acceptance.”

Another case of uncorroborated evidence.

So I am interesting in hearing your grounds for thinking the Pell case will be dismissed at the High Court.

Hi STEELEREDUX...

I don't know. Somehow, I believe they will uphold his appeal should they accede to his request. Personally, I've never held too much stock in our highest Court in the land. Preferring instead that we regress and return to the wisdom of the Privy Council. They're so far removed from our own Court system, justice is seen to be done, due to their total impartiality.

After all, our whole system of jurisprudence is based on British Law, and if we wish to have a final bite at the cherry, as it were, why not allow a contentious matter determined by the P.C, without a scintilla of partiality? Steele, my friend, this topic has completely worn me out. I'm sorry you wasted your time, on my opinion. You deserve better than what I've provided you.

Dear o sung wu,

Not at all mate, I always appreciate being prompted to delve into an issue further, and to find myself looking up High Court cases to get a better handle on how an appeal of this nature might fare has been a great antidote to some of the more insipid offerings on this thread.

In a very real sense this is yet another exploration of individual rights intersecting with communal ones. How much should we protect the rights of the rights of people charged with child abuse vs the rights of their apparent victims. I would submit we haven't got the balance right in the past and I would defy anyone with a clear conscience to make the case that we have.

Perhaps we still haven't got it right, but at least we are trying to make a better fist of it. For some it will mean adjusting their thinking a little.

The unfortunate thing for me is how much people's politics have once again been allowed to dictate their positions on the Pell case. It takes work to separate out the two, for me as much as anyone else.

Thanks for the conversation.

Dear Steele,

You're spot on. This case has very much been
politicised.

As I said earlier - it is the ultimate David and
Goliath tale of a young man who never sought fame
or compensation, just wanted justice against a
well-resourced defendant who has for years cultivated
and been supported by his powerful image - while
rumours of his private behaviour gathered momentum
in Ballarat and elsewhere.

Taking on Cardinal Pell the 3rd most senior person in
the worldwide Catholic Church. A man supported by
two former PMs who did not spend one minute in court,
did not hear or read a word of the evidence and yet
nonetheless by implication branded the young man a liar.

The trauma and anxiety for all involved, for the young
man, for the family of his dead friend, for the entire
community of people who have survived industrial-scale abuse
by Catholic clergy in this country cannot be underestimated.