Foxy wrote: "Legal academics have described Pell's case being acquitted on a technicality."

[Some left leaning] Legal academics have described Pell's case being acquitted on a technicality.
There - fixed it for you.

But its probably true that for many of those of a certain ilk, Pell did get off on a technicality. For those people Pell was guilty of being the head of a hated group and what he got charged and convicted of was a mere technicality. So being found not guilty of those particular charges is neither here nor there - a mere technicality. Because after all he was guilty of the wider crime of being a catholic priest.

I think that's why they think his acquittal is a mere technicality. Of course, they also fully intend to find other charges they can throw at him. So he is currently technically free, but only until they can rectify the legal systems obvious oversights.

BTW Foxy, do you 'respect' the current ruling?

mhaze,

Prof. Ben Mathews, Prof. School of Law Queensland
University of Technology.

Bernard Thomas, Senior Lecturer, Queensland University
of Technology.

Prof. Gideon Boas, a barrister and Professor of Law
at La Trobe University in Melbourne.

Dr Tyrone Kirchengast, a barrister and solicitor of
the high court.

Prof. David Hamer with the University of Sydney Law
School.

All according to you are left leaning?

Dear oh dear.

Prof. David Hamer said the Pell case was complex and
that even experts had different readings and views of it
and the high court decision.

Essentially Pell's freedom by the high court does not
mean that Cardinal Pell did not perpetrate the abhorrent
acts of which he was convicted earlier. It only means
that the available evidence could not prove the
crimes "beyond reasonable doubt."

Foxy,

I think once Judge Mark Weinberg dissented it was obvious to everyone that Pell would be successful with his appeal to the High Court.

I think it begs the question of whether or not having one judge dissent was actually planned with the aim of getting Pell off the hook.

The high court is the highest court in the Australian
judicial system. The ultimate legal suthority.

The judges did not accuse the young witness against
Pell of being a liar or a fantasist. They did not
find his evidence contained discrepancies or displayed
inadequacies.

As one commentator pointed out:

"Long term, the court's decision reinforces scepticism in
senior legal circles about prosecution of accusations of
sex crimes committed a long time ago."

"The question that has yet to be fully explored is how
the law operates here when time has placed everyone - the
accused, accusers, police, and prosecutors at such a
disadvantage."

Of course we have to respect the decision of the high court.
We can only assume that it's decision was carefully
considered and is well founded in criminal law. However
perhaps it is also time that reforms be put in place
to level the playing field?

Dear Foxy,

It is my understanding that once Judge Mark Weinberg dissented the High Court had no option but to acquit Pell and effectively the dissension was in fact a fait accompli for an acquittal by the High court.

I think there are some serious questions to be answered but unfortunately the people who can answer those questions will probably take their answers to the grave and it will be left to the historians and sociologists to work out what took place.

Mr O, there's no system that is flawless.

Sometimes innocent people are convicted and
guilty people aren't.

The Pell case had a set of unique and complex
circumstances - that the legal experts said would
not necessarily be a factor in other jury trials.

See you on another discussion.

It's time to move on regarding this one.