Except there were no jurors involved in this case level; it was 3 judges, 2 of whom ruled against the cardinal, one who said the evidence didn’t support the conviction and ruled for the cardinal. So who were the two judges who ruled against the cardinal and what are their backgrounds? I suspect pre-bias on their part.
The Aussie media and academe wanted him guilty long before the trial. Like the rest of Leftism in Western Civilization, they must remove, by any means, those who don’t worship government.