Foxy,

This is the first time that you have deliberately lied in a post.

The failure of the prosecution to deliver any substantial evidence is a catastrophic failure not trivial.

definition:

A technicality is a trivial or very small detail. You might consider your scuffed, unpolished shoes to be an unimportant technicality when you're dressing for a job interview.

You can use the noun technicality for any small point or detail, but it's most likely to come up in the context of a court trial or a conversation with an attorney. A legal technicality is a small but ultimately important detail of the law. For example, a robbery suspect might have his trial dismissed on a legal technicality if the arresting police officer neglected to show him a search warrant before searching his house.

shadow minister,

I am not lying or making things up. I am simply stating
facts which are available on the web. And the facts are
that 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 discussing Pell's earlier appeal made
an error about the nature of the correct legal principles
of their application. They found that they had.

Pell won on a legal technicality - but he will continue
to be assailed by multiple lawsuits.

As I cited earlier in contrast the complainant was believed
by a jury, by a majority judgement and by a substantial
body of public opinion.

I do not wish to continue to argue this case. You can call
me a liar - but all you need to do is Google it for yourself.

Foxy,

I am well aware of the details of the case and the facts of the high court appeal, and apparently, you are not.

The High Court judgement on the quality of the evidence presented by the prosecution was so damning that essentially the quality of the evidence was so poor that it would be insufficient to meet the requirements of a civil court where the onus of proof is much lower.

It is no coincidence that the planned civil cases have evaporated. This is because any civil case against Pell is now unwinnable.

Note that this legal technicality is the only reason Shorten isn't in jail and that this case should never have come to trial.

For you to try and infer that this is a trifle is profoundly dishonest.

shadow minister,

I would love to agree with you.
But then we would both be wrong.

Foxy,

You are already wrong enough for both of us.

Perhaps you could point out the civil case against Pell or the Catholic church based on this court case?

Crickets!!

shadow minister,

http://sbs.com.au/news/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality/92d697a3-e3c4-4c74-837f-9ca9807ce27b