.

From the federal government web site :

« The High Court is the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Its functions are to interpret and apply the law of Australia; to decide cases of special federal significance including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and to hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State and Territory courts » :
.

An exercise in Socrates “elenthos”( an argumentative dialogue of questions and answers to stimulate critical thinking) :

Should we have confidence in the Australian High Court and respect its decisions ?

A priori, yes.

But it seems that all the lower courts, without exception, are capable of committing errors and omissions. What about the High Court ? Is it capable of committing errors and omissions too, or is it infallible ?

A priori, no, it is not infallible. It is capable of committing errors and omissions too.
.

Conclusion :

The High Court does not replace the Constitution as the governing law. Just as a referee or umpire can make a bad call, so the Justices of the High Court can make a bad ruling.

The High Court is not infallible. When it violates or misinterprets the Constitution or makes a bad ruling, the response should be public disagreement and insistence on correction, not passive acceptance out of blind faith in its authority.

.

The technicality that the case against Pell was dismissed on was not a legal loophole, nor a procedural error, it was simply that there was not the evidence to convict him.

The reality is that if the prosecution had proper judgement, they would never have taken the case to court. Now the result is that Pell can never be tried again for these charges, Pell can now sue the Victorian government for abuse of power and 3 judges are looking at limited careers.

Shadow Minister,

Let's leave it to the historians and sociologists to work out what happened.

Last thing we need is someone who is just an engineer telling us what is right and what is wrong about the Pell case.

Banjo Paterson,

Well said. I totally agree.

I also agree with Banjo Paterson.

Professor David Hamer with the University
of Sydney Law School said the Pell case was
complex and even experts had different
readings and views of it and the high court
decision.

As stated earlier - "What's to say the high court
had it right?"

You had a jury process that functioned, you had a
court of appeal that by majority agreed with them, and
gave it serious consideration, and a high court
who saw it differently."

"There is no system that is flawless. Some jurors will
give verdicts that are perverse or unreasonable and,
sometimes so will judges..."

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

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

No fair-minded person would want Pell in jail if he did
not commit the crime, or as the court found, there is
reasonable doubt.

But it's hard to claim he's faced an injustice, at least
in the technical sense - he was granted every opportunity
the legal system provides, including some of the finest
barristers and appeals right up to the high court -
a privilege not granted to many.

Reforms need to move towards addressing how the system can
be more responsive to victim/survivors justice needs.

Well I suppose all those who said Brexit could not happen, Hilary could not lose and that Greta was a prophetess are suffering such grief and inability to discern anything correctly that now they must vent their anger on a man found innocent. Combination of Trump derangement syndrome, tantrum throwing and desperation. What else could you expect.