Dear o sung wu,

You asked;

“A question if I may Steele - Under the Scottish legal system, they have (or did) have a system where a jury may find three perfectly acceptable verdicts, in their criminal procedure.

Guilty; Not Guilty, or Not proven. Do you think their system would work here, especially when you consider the machinations associated with Cardinal PELL'S case?”

It is funny you should ask.

“Australia's Catholic Church hierarchy received a complaint in 2002 that a trainee priest (George Pell) had sexually abused a twelve-year-old altar boy (named Phil) in 1961-1962 at a holiday camp for boys on Phillip Island, south-east of Melbourne.

According to a church document, Phil has alleged that, on several occasions, the trainee priest George Pell (then aged about 20) thrust his hand down the inside of Phil's pants and got "a good handful" of the boy's penis and testicles; and, on other occasions, George Pell allegedly tried to guide the boy's hand into the front of Pell's pants.

By the year 2000, when Phil was aged 50, he realised that the trainee priest George Pell had risen to become an Archbishop. Phil was shocked — "he did not think it right that someone who had behaved indecently towards children should lead the church," the church document says. So, beginning in 2000, Phil tried to alert the church authorities.

Phil emphasised that he was not seeking compensation. And he was not reporting this matter to the police (therefore there is no police investigation into Phil's complaint). Rather, Phil was concerned about the safety of children in the church's care; and he merely wanted the church authorities to be aware of the offences that were allegedly committed upon him (Phil) at the altar boys' camp.

In 2002, the hierarchy paid a senior barrister, Mr Alec Southwell QC, to examine (and report on) Phil's complaint. Archbishop George Pell (who was indeed at the altar boys' camp) denied committing any abuse. Mr Southwell's report concluded that the former altar boy "appeared to speak honestly from an actual recollection".

Cont...

Cont...

Mr Southwell said he was not persuaded that the former altar boy was a liar as alleged by Pell. [The incident in 1960-1961 is not included in the criminal charges that Pell faced in court in 2018 because the former altar boy Phil has not reported this matter to the police — and Phil says he does not want to re-open his 1960-1961 matter now because he is still feeling hurt by the manner in which he says Pell's defence team brutalised him when he tried to report it to the church authorities in 2002.]”

http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/36

As you will see in the link a conclusion from Stephen Crittenden of the Religion Report.

Quote

Reader: Mr Southwell’s conclusion is exquisitely balanced. He accepts “that the complainant, when giving evidence of molesting, gave the impression that he was speaking honestly from an actual recollection”. However, he says Dr Pell “also gave me the impression he was speaking the truth”. A significant part of Mr Southwell’s report concerns the standard of proof; because he considered what was alleged against Dr Pell as serious, he was inclined to apply a strict burden, akin to the “beyond reasonable doubt” of criminal proceedings. That helped Dr Pell. It also made Mr Southwell’s careful conclusion – that he could not be “satisfied that the complaint has been established” – rather less than a complete exoneration.

Stephen Crittenden: In other words, Mr Southwell’s verdict seems to have an affinity with the Scottish verdict of “case not proven”

End quote.

To me the term 'manifestly unfair' should probably cut both ways. Give a verdict of guilty or not guilty by all means, but if evidence come to light that renders the either verdict manifestly unsafe then the decision should be able to be revisited. I know this would impinge on the notion of double jeopardy but so be it.

Dear Foxy,

All the best with the upcoming dance with the healing fraternity. I'm sure they will have you back to us fighting the good fight in no time.

No, Mr Op. I just think it an interesting case with potentially significant implications, so I wanted some more understanding of the machinations of the justice system. Reading the dissenting judgement I get the impression that Justice Weinberg saw it as a verdict of high improbability rather than a verdict beyond reasonable doubt. At least Pell's defence was motivated enough by the appeal judgement to take things further. See what happens.

Cheers

Dear Steelie,

I read your response to O Sung Wu's question
about the Scottish Legal System with great interest.
And the Phil case with dismay.

Who knows where Cardinal Pell's case will end.
He's lost his appeal. We have to wait and see what
happens next.

Thank You for your well wishes regarding my surgery
tomorrow. They are greatly appreciated.

My husband was an altar boy - and he not only attended
private Catholic Schools, but he also did an architectural
study on St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne - for historical
record.

He has spoken about one experience at a Christian Brothers
School where he was called into the Principal's office
to pick up a school uniform that had been ordered by his
father.

When my husband came out of the Principal's office he
was met by four extremely excited fellow pupils who
persistently questioned "Did he lock the door?"
"What did he do to you?" "Did he put his hand down
your pants?".

Fortunately, because my husband's father frequently
went to talk to that Principal about his son's performance,
my husband did not have any negative experience
that the young kids suggested.

Later, a fellow student in my husband's class who the
Principal had always referred to as "my favourite"
committed suicide.

Strangely, the junior classes were moved to a new school
site thereafter, where the same Principal was transferred
as Principal of that school.

There would be few, if any, Catholic men who attended all boys Catholic High Schools in the 1960's who did not directly experience the "kiddy fiddlers", or know of others who did. The practice of paedophilia behaviour by priests and brothers was most common, it was a systemic part of school life. What angers me is not just the physical behaviour towards children by those in a position of trust, but the total disregard church authority takes towards those that were abused.

Some will say that paedophiles in the Australian Catholic Church were in the past, the church has changed, things have been corrected. I do not believe that is true, the organisation has done little on both counts. Children are still vulnerable to predictors within, and there are few safeguards to protect children, and when exposed the Church still looks to ways of protecting itself first and foremost.

Steele brings up the case of a boy in the 1960's on a alter boy camp allegedly molested by a young priest (George Pell), there is a high degree of probability that this is true. In 2019 if there was another alter boy camp, with a young priest involved, there still is a high probability that a child would be molested. Not much has changed, expect the perpetrators and church authorities have become more cunning at covering up.