Foxy,

Here is a real legal opinion of the case:

https://www.gnl.com.au/articles/2020/may/george-pell-case/

"The Cardinal Pell case continues a line of High Court decisions upholding a robust concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It confirms that the standard of proof needed to establish guilt is not to be lowered in order to compensate for the difficulty that police and prosecutors might face in proving events where there is significant delay in a complaint being made.

Such demeanour-based judgments (based solely on the witness’s manner and presentation) are criticised as being generally too subjective to draw rational inferences on an appeal.

The fact Cardinal Pell spent more than 400 days in prison before being acquitted could also spark renewed debates about the soundness and reliability of jury decision-making, especially in cases where the defendant is well known.

Another safeguard to jury trials that might be considered is the extent of a judge’s ability to direct a verdict of ‘not guilty’ where the evidence is unsafe to support a verdict. As the law presently stands, a trial judge can only direct a verdict of not guilty (i.e. decide that there is no case to be answered) if there is no evidence to establish the facts necessary to prove the prosecution case."

shadow minister,

The link I cited was also legal opinions from two
legal professionals on the Pell case.
Did you even bother to read it

Foxy,

Yes, I read it. However, it wasn't a legal opinion. It was a political opinion piece written by legally qualified people. There is a difference.

Essentially the high court ruled that the verbal evidence alone of a single person is insufficient to convict someone.

Imagine that your neighbour accuses you of stealing a package of his 20 years ago but has no other proof, no photos, no witnesses yet you are convicted based on his convincing a jury. If you can't see what's wrong with that then there's no convincing you.

shadow minister,

Perhaps you may begin to understand where I am
coming from if you bother to read the following
link:

http://crikey.com.au/2020/04/09/pell-right-decision-wrong-system/

Foxy,

The very foundations of the criminal justice system is that:
1 - the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,
2 - that the onus of proof is on the prosecution and not the defence,
3 - the accused has the right to silence and not to incriminate himself.

I understand the frustrations with the legal system especially with regard to the difficulty in prosecuting sexual offences especially those older ones where physical evidence has disappeared. However, the proposals in the Crikey essentially undermines all these principles and while it will convict more of the guilty, it will certainly convict far more of the innocent.

In the Pell case, the possibility that witness J (who stood to gain substantially financially from Pell's conviction) could be lying was ignored by the jury leaving him in the invidious position of trying to prove his innocence, was a serious travesty of justice.

For me, this is just another brain fart movement from left whingers who are clearly unaware of the catastrophic unintended consequences.

shadowminister,
You’ll have to forgive Foxy because she doesn’t understand, she thinks that one juror cannot make a difference in the Jury system.