yep a 7 nil judgement by left leaning judges and the regressives just show how much they really believe in the rule of law. Being caught out as wrong so many times on some many issues just makes the regressives deranged as see here on olo. Spiteful hateful rhetoric is their go to while still trying to virtue signal their 'compassion'. The secularist have achieved their goal in producing such a generations happy to live in deception.

Those who've been convinced of Cardinal Pell's
innocence will believe that justice has been
served while the High Court's decision will
be devastating for others.

It is important however to remember that the verdict
was about one case only and there are larger
problems both within the Church and our justice
system that need to be addressed.

For example -

The Church needs greater transparency and to
more broadly reform the way it deals with
allegations of sexual abuse.

At the same time reforms need to move
towards addressing how the judicial system
can be more responsive to victim/survivors
justice needs.

SR,

I have never been a fan of Pell or the catholic church, but from the point where the Victorian police were advertising for potential complainants against Pell, it was evident that there was a target on Pell's back. The Victorian left considered him guilty and all that remained was to determine what of. My position was always that the case against Pell was weak and it is clear given the scathing High court findings that I was right.

Your response: "Look I get that much of the backing of the right for Pell has come because he was a confidant of your poster boy Abbott ... How your ideology has twisted your normal leanings is fascinating." Was to attack my values, your typical ad hominem.

Foxy,

You are right, "The very nature of sexual assault is complex. It regularly occurs in private, the victims themselves are
often the only witnesses. There are generally long delays
before disclosure. There is rarely any physical evidence
and the case often centers on issues of credibility."

The rape case against Shorten was a prime example, if the #MeToo standards of evidence were applied, he would be in jail.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« The very nature of sexual assault is complex.

It regularly occurs in private, the victims themselves are
often the only witnesses. There are generally long delays
before disclosure. There is rarely any physical evidence
and the case often centres on issues of credibility.

Then there is also the entrenchment throughout our society
of misconceptions and stereotypes about victims/survivors.
Often the victims are blamed for their own victimisation.
Children routinely lie. And so on.

These aspects pose a unique set of challenges to the
traditional judicial processing of cases.

Reforms need to move towards addressing how the judicial
system can be more responsive to victim/survivor justice
needs »

You have summed it up nicely, Foxy and I totally agree that the key to viable long-term improvement is justice reform.

Presumption of innocence was designed to provide an invincible barrier of legal protection for the innocent not for the guilty. Sex offenders have been taking advantage of it far too long. The handling of sex offences by police and justice is so poor that the large majority of cases are never reported and conviction rates of those that are reported are shockingly low.

National statistics, in 2018 provide the following details of sex victims :

• the majority were female (84%)
• about half were aged between 10 and 19 years
• since 2010, sexual assault increased by 40%

Conviction rates are hard to come by. A News.com article in 2017 indicated the following conviction rates :

VIC (2009-2010) : 8.9% of reported sex offences
NSW (2015) : 8.5% of reported sex offences

Nothing indicates that the situation is any better in the other states and territories, nor that there have been any signs of improvement since.

The least we could do would be to make no presumptions whatsoever regarding innocence or guilt in cases involving the most vulnerable amongst us :

• children under the legal age for consensual sex (age 16 except SA and TAS age 17)
• mentally and physically handicapped people

Each case should be judged on its merits.

.

Banjo and Foxy,

Presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt are the two most fundamental cornerstone protections for individuals against the abuse of power by the state dating back to habeas corpus in the 13th century.

The major reason that sexual assault has such a low rate of conviction is precisely because of the low level of reporting. In cases where the victim goes directly to the police and there are physical photographs and corroborating evidence such dna, photos etc, then the conviction rates are far higher.

Even with these protection there are many cases where innocent people have been convicted and served years even decades before being proven innocent. Many if not most of these convictions were based on flawed witness testimony. There have been more than few lives ruined by claims of rape that later proved deliberately false.

Weakening these protections will certainly improve conviction rates not only for sexual crimes but all crimes and will be open for abuse and corruption with many innocent people punished.

Boy, how this thread has mushroomed with strong, and I must say, legitimate opinions both ways. I'm certainly no supporter of the Catholic Church, rather evident from my previous postings. Although baptised a Catholic at the age of one week, and now 66 I've not been a practising member of the Church in over 50 years. I wrote this on the forum shortly after the verdict of the High Court;

"Ultimately in this case the evidence against Pell was not strong enough....Pell was right about one thing, his case was not a referendum on the wrongs done by the (Australian) Catholic Church against children, and they are many, but a case against him personalty, on that score we must respect the decision of the High Court. This particular matter brought against Pell may now be closed, but there are many more things that await a legal outcome. An interesting read will be what is contained in the Royal Commission report concerning Pell when the redactions are removed."

cont