Is Mise,

No. I am not pushing any "ägenda."

I am being unflinching
in providing facts from legitimate and
recognised legal academics, journalists,
and reputable sources.

Thank you for asking.

An innocent man, a 'not guilty' man unjustly sentenced. I see the glee in your words, you little sadistic boy. Ha Ha he got punished!

Josephus,

Hundreds of potentially innocent people are
languishing in prison. They won't get the
chance Cardinal George Pell did. They don't
have the funds, nor fame, to appeal to the
high court in the manner Pell did. And in those
rare cases where they are able to attempt it,
they are extremely unlikely to be granted
special leave to appeal as Pell was.

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

But it's hard to claim he's faced an injustice,
since that 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.

.

A little history :

In Shakespeare’s tragedy, King Lear, Gloucester’s bastard son, Edmund, quotes Edgar, Gloucester’s legitimate son as having replied when he (Edmund) threatened to expose him (act 2, scene 1): “You penniless bastard! Do you really think that if it came down to my word against yours, anyone would believe you? No. I’d deny whatever evidence you had against me - even if it were in my own handwriting - and turn it all into evidence against you and your plans for treachery” (1605-1606).
.

Commenting on the presumption of innocence, the English philosopher and jurist, Jeremy Bentham, noted in “A Treatise on Judicial Evidence” which he published in 1825 :

« At first it was said to be better to save several guilty men, than to condemn a single innocent man; others, to make the maxim more striking, fixed on the number ten, a third made this ten a hundred, and a fourth made it a thousand. All these candidates for the prize of humanity have been outstripped by I know not how many writers, who hold, that, in no case, ought an accused to be condemned, unless the evidence amount to mathematical or absolute certainty. According to this maxim, nobody ought to be punished, lest an innocent man be punished »
.

We’ll never learn …

.

The final statement of the high court says it all 7-0 with not one dissenting voice:

"The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents.

"With respect to each of the applicant's convictions, there was...a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof."

As for some salient facts:

Witness J stood to gain financially from a guilty verdict and subsequent suit,
Witness J's testimony was described by the high court as compelling not credible,
Not one shred of Witness J's evidence could be corroborated by other witnesses or physical evidence.
The only other witnesses evidence contradicted Witness J's testimony, and the prosecution could not or would not challenge it.

The trial judge has a duty to ensure that the jury understands what is required for a conviction, and also has the power and responsibility to overturn a jury decision that is patently wrong.

That the decisions of the jury, the trial judge and two appellate judges were wrong is now established.

Foxy,

I fail to see how child protection is boosted by wrongfully convicting someone? Is it simply a collection of token scalps?

These hundreds of innocent convicts that you describe, most are due to compelling evidence by witness that were either mistaken or lying. Lowering the evidential bar would increase wrongful convictions by orders of magnitude.

SR,

The high court judgement on the quality of the evidence was so simplistic that a 1st year law student would easily understand. That a trial judge with decades of experience could make such a fundamental cock up is a damning indictment.

Mr 0,

Lying again I see. I never claimed history was BS.

Get a life folks. It's sad that you are still arguing about this. You don't have a clue what you are talking about - you just have opinions like every other man and his dog. The Cardinal's fate was decided unanimously by the High Court. Whether or not you like the decision is totally irrelevant. Justice has been done. Move on.