Posted on 04/07/2020 6:25:08 PM PDT by naturalman1975
The spectacular 7-0 decision of the High Court in favour of Cardinal George Pell is impossible to describe in conventional terms of winning or losing.
It can be understood only in terms of impact. The impact of wrongful imprisonment and vile insult in the case of Pell. The impact of years of legal anxiety, and the final crushing collapse for the complainant.
But the greatest impact will be on the Victorian criminal justice system. How could that proud system get something as important as this so legally wrong so consistently through so many steps over a process that lasted years?
In the final analysis, the decision of the High Court came down to the most basic proposition of the Australian criminal law. Nobody can be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt — no matter how much they, or the organisation they represent, may be loathed.
Facts pointing to a reasonable doubt cannot be overcome by anything, even the perception that the person making the allegations presents as highly believable. And appeal courts are not entitled to ignore factual doubts through deference to the view of a jury that a complainant was deeply convincing.
Because facts, in criminal law, beat impressions. To justify the decision of the High Court, no one has to believe that the complainant was lying. It simply was the case that his evidence could not legally meet the facts. This is a major part of the tragedy of this case. No one is going to emerge unscathed.
On the one hand, we have a man who has been unjustly imprisoned and reviled. True, his enemies will never again be able to call him a “convicted pedophile” — the High Court has substituted a verdict of acquittal — but his life and reputation have been trashed.
Then we have another man, his accuser, who has been dragged through the thorns of the same justice system over a period of years to what looked like triumph but now is a bitter end.
How could all this have happened?
The grim answer is that the beginning of this disaster was the same as its end: the concept of a reasonable doubt. This never was a case where charges could be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
There always were too many witnesses who were in the right place but saw nothing. Too many mathematical failures of timing. To many improbabilities of opportunity and action.
Yet it has taken the highest and final court in the land to state the flatly obvious.
From the beginning, in legal circles there was virtually no dispassionate observer who thought the charges could stick: not in terms of being prosecuted, let alone to the point of conviction.
Lonely dissenters hated Pell so much they did not care, said he certainly was guilty of other crimes anyway or that he was the right person to be punished for the general crimes of Catholic clergy. In other words, they had abandoned their legal ethics.
The inescapable conclusion is that Pell was prosecuted on an unwinnable charge for two reasons: first, that there were those within the justice system, particularly the police, who were determined to destroy him; second, that there was a large segment of the media, fuelled by the police and “victims’ lawyers”, that so clamoured for Pell’s conviction that the weaknesses of the case against him were drowned out by howls of accusation.
For many years, police had a dreadful record in prosecuting sexual offences. The slightest difficulty would see them drop a case and the hope of a victim for vindication and affirmation. Lives were ruined and lost. But with Pell, the police pursued him relentlessly, improperly and publicly. Repeatedly, the Office of Public Prosecutions refused to put the police charges. Finally, the police themselves forced its hand.
The same police force that stalked Pell, giving regular press conferences along the way referring to his “victims”, and briefing selected journalists, is now the subject of a royal commission, effectively into their use of a defence lawyer as an informant.
This is less a culture than a drain.
At the same time, a self-congratulatory media acted as a mob rather than journalists. Instead of reporting a case, they did their best to create an atmosphere conducive to a conviction.
The ABC — supposedly our “most trusted” source of news –— was and remains particularly virulent. Its spear carrier is journalist Louise Milligan, whose life’s work has been her book shredding the Cardinal’s reputation.
But after the High Court’s decision, there now will need to be an extra, very uncomfortable chapter.
One remarkable thing is how the ABC sought to trash Pell and the Catholic Church even as the High Court appeal proceeded.
Coincidentally, the first episode of Sarah Ferguson’s Revelation was aired on St Patrick’s Day, while its last — dealing with what falsely were claimed to be “new” allegations against Pell — was rushed forward once the date of the High Court’s decision was announced. It was almost as if the ABC had the breathtaking arrogance to think that it might influence the decision of our highest court.
But more likely it had to do with opening shots in the second campaign against Pell by the ABC and its media allies, largely being waged to drown out their catastrophic failure in the High Court.
One part of this is to salivate over alleged impending civil claims against Pell. The other is to demand the release of the redacted portions of the royal commission’s report, which they clearly believe will propose charges against Pell for concealing child sexual abuse.
Anyone can be civilly sued, but this has not yet happened to Pell, let alone has a judgment been given. The royal commission conceivably may recommend charges, but they have yet to be laid, heard or adjudged.
The feverish speculation about them is merely the same self-serving, irresponsible behaviour of a media faction that worked so hard to get and keep Pell in jail. And failed: seven-nil.
Greg Craven is a professor of law and vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.
God is the ultimate judge. Like everyone else here, I don’t know if he’s innocent or guilty. Let God deal with it.
Some info for you from a fellow Freeper - He’s innocent.
The accuser must have known he was lying (unless he is totally delusional). So I don’t see why he deserves sympathy. I assume he won’t face any criminal chargers, any more than the women who falsely accused Kavanaugh have had to deal with any legal issues.
Some people who know who the accuser is say they believe he was abused and could not identify his abuser and was manipulated into believing it was Pell. That is the reason why some people have sympathy for him - they believe he was used appallingly.
Oops. “Criminal charges.” I don’t think the Chargers are going to travel to Australia, and as far as I know they aren’t criminals.
There were over twenty witnesses who said Pell was elsewhere at the time of the alleged crime. The prosecution did not challenge the testimony of any of these witnesses.
There was one person - the accuser - who said this happened.
In this case, I think we can say the man is innocent.
Cardinal George Pell is a pretty strong and influential conservative, so the leftist knives were really out for him. Not only is he a “climate change denier”, he openly denied holy communion to a satanic pack of homos.
Okay, I'll say it: Of course the complainant was lying. What he was claiming happened at a public cathedral Mass attended by thousands was physically impossible. Which is why their High Court voted 7-0 to overturn the conviction. The complainant--who only mentioned his "abuse" in his 40s after hearing a lawyer's radio ad encouraging people to allege sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and win millions of dollars--was lying.
The press in Oz hates Pell because he is faithful, pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-normal, and not afraid to say so. He also made no friends in the Holy See by investigating the Vatican Bank and finding millions of dollars worth of incompetence and corruption.
But I notice Pope Francis showed him due respect today. I was surprised and pleased.
When I was in Australia, the bias of the ABC was clearly apparent.
Well, he was accused of violently raping two 12 yo boys (one of whom denied on his deathbed that any such abuse occurred) in a semi-public area of the Cathedral immediately after Sunday Mass while fully vested over a period of about 15 minutes, despite being placed elsewhere during that time by multiple witnesses. Does that help?
**Nobody can be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt — no matter how much they, or the organisation they represent, may be loathed.**
They may not like Pell, but he is innocent according to this court.
Do you think they will deal with it in a sane manner?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.