There seems to be a lot of evoking Lindy Chamberlain on this thread.

runner wrote; “I have no time for the Catholic church however like with Lindy Chamberlain can't stand activist judges pretending to be impartial as in Victoria.”

mhaze wrote; “So did Lindy Chamberlain suffer an injustice?”

Can I remind people that the High Court with which you lot are so enamoured right now allowed Lindy Chamberlain's guilty conviction to stand.

It was only after the matinee jacket was found and a commission of inquiry was conducted that leave was given for the case to be taken to the Supreme Court of the NT where the judges cleared her within 3 minutes. This after she had spent three years in jail.

The High Court does make mistakes, some of them grievous, and there is nothing to say for certain they haven't done the same on this occasion.

Hi Steele,

Thank You for reminding us about that fact
regarding the Chamberlain case.

As I pointed out to mhaze, which he didn't seem
to understand, the Chamberlain case is only
one example of wrongful conviction following a
flawed criminal trial. The Lindy Chamberlain case
is a reminder that the criminal justice system
does get it wrong - with each error bearing its
own human cost.

And as I keep repeating - hopefully truth will
prevail as it eventually did in the Chamberlain case.

Dear Steele,

It's been a highly interesting discussion.
Thank You for raising it. But for me, it's
now run its course.

I look forward to our next one.

Take care and stay safe.

Foxy bows out, again and again, leaving, as usual, unanswered questions in her wake.

.

Another famous Australian criminal trial :

« After a Petty Sessions hearing at Beechworth in August, Ned Kelly was taken to Melbourne, passing through streets thronged with gaping people. He was deemed fit to stand trial for murder at Melbourne’s Supreme Court on October 28, 1880. The judge, Sir Redmond Barry, who had once made the grim promise that he would see Ned Kelly hang, wanted to dispose of the trial in a single day, in order to have it finished before the Melbourne Cup. The inexperienced barrister defending Ned was no match for an expert prosecutor, a determined judge and a chief Crown witness — the constable who escaped at Stringybark — and who committed perjury. Barry also misdirected the jury on a vital point of law concerning self-defence. Inevitably, a guilty verdict was announced. Barry sentenced Ned to hang, concluding with: ‘And may the Lord have mercy on your soul.’ Ned famously retorted: ‘I will see you there, where I go.’ Twelve days after Ned was executed, Judge Barry dropped dead in his chambers on November 23, 1880.

« Ned Kelly’s execution was scheduled for Thursday November 11, 1880 — only thirteen days after his trial. A massive movement was launched to save his life. There were huge public meetings, torch-lit marches, a deputation to the Governor, and a petition for Ned’s reprieve from execution. Three days before the planned hanging, the petition was presented to the Governor with more than 32,000 signatures. An hour later, the Executive Council announced that the execution would go ahead. »

Ned Kelly’s trial :

http://www.ironoutlaw.com/trial/
.

In March 1881, the Victorian Government approved a Royal Commission into the conduct of the Victoria Police with the Kellys.

It concluded with a list of 36 recommendations for reform. Kelly hoped that his death would lead to an investigation into police conduct, and although the report did not exonerate him or his gang, its findings were said to strip the authorities "of what scanty rags of reputation the Kellys had left them."
.

Ned Kelly in UNESCO’s “Memory of the World”

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/memory-of-the-world/register/full-list-of-registered-heritage/registered-heritage-page-8/the-story-of-the-kelly-gang-1906/#c187810

.

Pell was acquitted in the high court by a 7-0 decision.

The civil cases against him as a result are as a consequence far less certain, and against a considerable legal defense, the plaintiffs risk losing and being stuck with huge costs and even if they win, their chances of collecting any recompense is limited.

That Pell has a strong case against the Victorian government should make them think very carefully.