Australian court hears final appeal by ex-Vatican treasurer Pell

[webfact]

Australian court hears final appeal by ex-Vatican treasurer Pell

By Sonali Paul

 

FILE PHOTO - Vatican Treasurer Cardinal George Pell is surrounded by Australian police as he leaves the Melbourne Magistrates Court in Australia, October 6, 2017. REUTERS/Mark Dadswell/File Picture

 

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia's highest court began hearing the final bid on Wednesday by former Vatican treasurer George Pell to overturn his conviction for sexually assaulting two teenaged choirboys in the 1990s when he was archbishop of Melbourne.

 

Cardinal Pell, 78, began serving a six-year prison sentence a year ago, becoming the highest ranking Catholic clergyman worldwide to be jailed for child sex offences.

 

He was not expected to appear either in person or via videolink, in line with the justice system's protocols, throughout the two-day hearing in front of the High Court of Australia's seven justices.

 

Pell was convicted by a jury in December 2018 on one charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and four charges of an indecent act with a child under 16. He was sentenced in March 2019.

 

His appeal to the High Court in the country's capital follows a ruling by the lower Court of Appeal in Victoria last August that upheld his conviction by a 2-1 majority.

 

The High Court could throw out the case, acquit Pell, reject his appeal or send the case back to Victoria's Court of Appeal.

 

If the court decides against throwing out the appeal and hears the full case, a judgment would likely be handed down in several months.

 

The hearing began on Wednesday morning with arguments from Pell's legal team, based on two main points: that the Court of Appeal majority erred by shifting the onus of proof to the defence, and that they incorrectly concluded it was open to the trial jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Pell was guilty.

 

Pell's lawyer Bret Walker told the court that a key factor that made Pell's alleged offences implausible was that they took place after Sunday mass in a busy area of St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne, not in secretive or private settings, "unlike so many appalling historical sexual misconduct cases".

 

(Reporting by Sonali Paul; editing by Jane Wardell)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-03-11

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Mick501]

I'm no fan of Pell, but when the trial judge has clear doubts about his guilt, and one of the appellant court judges says there's a high probability he's innocent, it seems the jury got this wrong.   When people of that legal standing and full knowledge of all the facts have such high level of doubt, how can he be convicted "beyond reasonable doubt"?

[rosst]

3 hours ago, Mick501 said:

I'm no fan of Pell, but when the trial judge has clear doubts about his guilt, and one of the appellant court judges says there's a high probability he's innocent, it seems the jury got this wrong.   When people of that legal standing and full knowledge of all the facts have such high level of doubt, how can he be convicted "beyond reasonable doubt"?

I agree but I could not care less because he was guilty of a disgusting cover up of many guilty persons so I hope he rots in jail 

[emptypockets]

6 hours ago, Mick501 said:

I'm no fan of Pell, but when the trial judge has clear doubts about his guilt, and one of the appellant court judges says there's a high probability he's innocent, it seems the jury got this wrong.   When people of that legal standing and full knowledge of all the facts have such high level of doubt, how can he be convicted "beyond reasonable doubt"?

Paedophiles in high places, including the judiciary.

Do some research on 'The Family' in South Australia during Don Dunstan's time.

[UbonThani]

13 hours ago, Mick501 said:

I'm no fan of Pell, but when the trial judge has clear doubts about his guilt, and one of the appellant court judges says there's a high probability he's innocent, it seems the jury got this wrong.   When people of that legal standing and full knowledge of all the facts have such high level of doubt, how can he be convicted "beyond reasonable doubt"?

They had 3 judges make decisions. 2 said guilty.

Edited March 11, 2020 by UbonThani

[UbonThani]

13 hours ago, Mick501 said:

there's a high probability he's innocent,

Says who? 2 judges said guilty.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by UbonThani

[Mick501]

3 hours ago, UbonThani said:

Says who? 2 judges said guilty.

 

 

Says the dissenting just us the dissenting judge in his findings.  Extremely strong words.  Also, the trial judge at sentencing stated to the effect,  "if I assume you are guilty, and assume it I must ( the the crimes are cold and calculated)".   Also extraordinary words.

 

how can these to judges hold those opinions if there is not reasonable doubt ?

Edited March 12, 2020 by Mick501

[Mick501]

10 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Paedophiles in high places, including the judiciary.

Do some research on 'The Family' in South Australia during Don Dunstan's time.

Googled "the family Don Dunstan" and nothing relevant on the first page.  Got a link please?

 

as someone who investigated pedos for many years I'm more aware than most that they are across all spectrums.  In this particular case for Pell though, there were many things that were wrong and just could not happen the way they were described.   That's not uncommon when people are recalling events from years before, but can you say you believe someone to the criminal standard of prosecution under those circumstances ?  Dangerous in my view, and it seems Pell was very likely a victim of years of negative publicity.