Is Mise,

I have no wish to continue to argue with you
or anyone else. Except to repeat what's already
been said:

The high court judgement found there was not
enough evidence to convict Pell. The offence
could have occurred, but there was enough
"reasonable doubt" in the allegations. Hence
Pell was given his freedom.

The high court appeal did not ask whether Pell committed
the offences. It asked whether the two majority judges in
the Victorian Court of Appeal, in dismissing Pell's
earlier appeal made an error about the nature of the
correct legal principles, or their application.

This legal technicality have been explained many times
in this discussion by legal academics. However, it is obvious
that those who have been convinced of Cardinal Pell's
innocence will believe that justice has been served.

runner,

The prosecution of Cardinal Pell has been
socially explosive and legally complex.

Some could also find it difficult or even
impossible to understand how the unanimous jury
verdicts of guilty, further supported by a
Court of Appeal, by majority of two judges,
can be overturned.

This high court decision may undermine
confidence in the legal system, especially in
child sexual abuse persecutions.

Civil legal actions against the Cardinal are ongoing,
so his legal battles aren't over yet.

Foxy,

Yes, keep trying to find something on Pell, no matter whether he's guilty or not. Keep hounding him and sooner or later, that will break him. Throw anything at him, that might work. Serve the bastard right, regardless of whether or not he's ever done anything wrong. Catholic bastards. They all surely must have done something wrong, bunch of perverts and poofters, all of them.

So what should the Church do to ensure that those sorts of crimes can't occur easily again ? Or doesn't that matter ?

Joe

Foxy,

Did you miss the links that I gave to "Reasonable Doubt" and " Legal Technicalities"?

Foxy,

I concur, the Pell saga should and can only now be left to the historians and the sociologists to research and draw conclusions because there is much more to the story than the guilt or innocence of a single clergyman and the legal conduct pertaining to his case. The Pell case is now really all about the relationship between state, religion and society and I am sure there will be much scholarly research and writing on these matters.

.

Dear ttbn and Joe (loudmouth2,

.

ttbn wrote (and Joe wrote something similar a while back on this thred) :

« 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. »
.

As the final court of appeal, the end of road in our national judicial system, High Court decisions usually go unchallenged, but in the Pell case, many people do not believe that justice has been done.

The High Court ordered that :

« (a) the appeal be allowed; and

« (b) the appellant's convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place. »

It has long been established within the judiciary that an acquittal carries entirely different probative force than that of a conviction.

Acquittal on a criminal charge establishes no more than that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, whereas a conviction must be interpreted to mean that the charge was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Acquittal is not an indication of innocence or guilt. In criminal cases, the expression “not guilty” does not mean that the accused is not guilty. It means that he has “not been proven guilty” which is quite different. It does not exclude that he may have committed the crime. Nor does it necessarily mean that “justice has been done”. It often means that justice cannot be done – especially in the absence of material evidence and/or a credible eyewitness.

The High Court is not infallible. It is accountable to society for its decisions. Questioning its decisions is not only a right, it is a duty.

As the sovereign people of a modern democracy, we have the power to rectify iniquities and improve our justice.

As responsible citizens we should not just "move on". Justice may not have been done.

.