SR,

No, I don't think there is any 'communal rights' involved at all - no group or community or whatever has some sort of special rights for any of its 'members' to commit any crimes. This is purely an individual vs. individual matter, of Pell vs. his accuser. I would be appalled at any suggestion that any 'member' of the Catholic Church has any privilege over anybody else in deliberations of any court.

I'm sure you would ultimately agree :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Foxy,

Forgive me I'm not sure couching it in those terms is entirely without political bias either.

There is an equally valid perspective which says the accuser, who is able to enjoy the anonymity which is not afforded the accused to the same degree, is in a powerful position, possibly more powerful than even an elevated person like Pell.

I fully support anonymity in child sexual abuse cases but it does allow for reputations to be severely impacted without the accuser being known to the public at large and this must be manged in a way that affords some protection to the accused as well.

Also I do think there needs to be a decent discussion about the implications of giving greater weight to uncorroborated evidence. Perhaps it needs to be stipulated that it is more directly targeted toward child abuse cases, recognising the special nature of the offence. The need to be measured in our approach is self evident and the concerns that many have put on this thread, though enhanced by concocted political outrage, are not without merit.

However where uncorroborated evidence has caused miscarriages of justice have primarily been around cases of mistaken identity.

There have been cases where women have mistakenly identified their attacker in lineups. The Robert Cotton case is an example;

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/18/opinion/i-was-certain-but-i-was-wrong.html

However in the Pell case the identity question was rightly never raised. That the accused was present in the building was not at issue either. In the end it came down to the witnesses for Pell against the victim. The jury believed the victim over them.

I would have been more comfortable with the decision if Pell had chosen to give evidence, but I support it none the less.

Foxy,

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

...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."

That sounds a wee bit politicized!!

Nice to see that you feel for the family of his dead friend, a dead friend or his family that you obviously consider to be liars.

“An unusual feature of this case was that it depended entirely upon the complainant being accepted, beyond reasonable doubt, as a credible and reliable witness. Yet the jury were invited to accept his evidence without there being any independent support for it.”
— Justice Mark Weinberg in his dissent.

Exactly, ttbn. You cannot reliably profile a "witness of truth" just as you cannot reliably profile a liar. Much is made of the complainant not seeking financial gain, but there were many other motivations for him to tell a story. I hope the High Court considers the matter important enough to grant leave for a hearing, but I believe it to be unlikely that it will do so.

ttbn,

The fact Justice Weinberg had a different legal opinion to the other two judges, what should we do with that? Release Pell, put him back in his sacristy with a fresh batch of choir boys.
You haven't had a good year have you. Firstly your great white hope Corny Banana self imploded, now your spiritual leader Archy Pell finds himself in the slammer for kiddy fiddling. What next? Margie Thatcher was actually a man, dressed in drag, Ronnie Reagan had a sex change and secretly married Margie. What else can go wrong for you conservatives.

Issy, you dressed up as Friar Tuck, you do say. Nothing wrong with that. Its those who dress up as Friar Whack we have a problem with.