Hello there FOXY...

You say the same fellow, MR LEHRMANN has been accused of indecency with other woman, in some alleged court documents? Then those documents should be entered into evidence provided they can be authenticated of course. This is one helluva a mess, an utter disgrace, I'm so glad I'm out of the job now; Is all I can say. So typical of the Australian Judicial system.

When politics and the legal system collide the outcome is a train wrack. That is why its so important to uphold the doctrine of 'Separation of Power' which divides the institutions of government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial: the legislature makes the laws; the executive puts the laws into operation; and the judiciary interprets the laws, one must not interfere in the duties of the other two.

Dear O Sung Wu and Paul,

The documents apparently have been pulled however they said -
"Within the same initial period, allegations were published
to the effect that the man who had sexually assaulted the
complainant was also accused of having sexually assaulted
and harassed a number of other women." These documents
showed other allegations but were pulled because they were
thought to be able to influence the jury.

So much for our judicial system - as you point out.

From Foxy's own link...
"In their full reasons, the High Court concluded an independent assessment of the evidence by the Court of Appeal should have concluded there ought to have been sufficient doubt in the jury’s minds to preclude the verdict from being open."

ie the High Court found that the EVIDENCE was sufficient to create enough doubt such that there was reasonable doubt.

The High Court found that the trial failed to give sufficient weight to this doubt and the Appeals Court failed to recognise the failure of the jury.

So it wasn't a technicality unless you think the doctrine of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is merely a technical issue as opposed to the bedrock of British jurisprudence.

All this from the same article Foxy relies on. How did she miss that? On that, I don't have reasonable doubt.

Brittany is now headed back to the court chasing money.

The Lehrmann prosecution (or is it persecution?) was dropped because of fear about poor Brittany's mental health.

But now she's voluntarily headed back to court. It seems that Brittany's mental health has shown a miraculous improvement now that a bit of money is involved.

The link I gave earlier made it clear that the continual
convictions by unanimous jury verdicts regarding the
Pell case were a landmark in Australian legal history.
And that the High Courts decision will be a case to
examine for the legal world and for society more broadly.
Because the High Court's decision may undermine confidence
in the legal system especially in child sexual abuse
prosecutions.

The High Court did not ask whether Pell committed the offences.
It merely 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. In other So Pell won on a words whether they erred on a legal technicality?

Pell won on a legal technicality even though - his innocence will
forever be in doubt. By contrast the complainant has been
believed by a jury, by a majority judgement, and by a
substantial body of public opinion.

As for blaming Britanny Higgins for seeking compensation?
Mr Lehrmann is doing the same. We'll have to wait and see what
the outcome will be.