Australian High Court quashes conviction of Cardinal Pell on sex offences

[stouricks]

18 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Probably a formatting issue from the transcript of the judgement and being converted to another format for fast publication. It often takes weeks for transcripts to appear online. 

So no-one proof read and corrected the document before publishing it. I did it in 10 seconds.

 

H I G H C O U R T  O F  A U S T R A L I A 

Please direct enquiries to Ben Wickham, Senior Executive Deputy RegistrarTelephone: (02) 6270 6893 Fax: (02) 6270 6868 Email: [email protected]: www.hcourt.gov.au

PELL v THE QUEEN[2020] HCA 12.

Today, the High Court granted special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria and unanimously allowed the appeal. The High Court found that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place.

Edited April 8, 2020 by stouricks

[stouricks]

Sorry, double post.

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by stouricks

[Mick501]

35 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

 

Seven High Court Justices who reviwed the evidence from the trial, the appeal in Victoria disagree with you between them have hundreds of years legal learning and experience between them over a hundred years of precendents to guide them. However you are entitled to your opinion.

I am sure Richter QC would not have risked his reputation by acting ProBono had he thought that there was any shred of fact to convict. 

Pell would do anything to protect the church, and would never have reported anything to police which may brought the church to bad publicity. It is still hard for a person who has been sexually abused to be believed irrsepctive of gender. Many still hold the attirude that men/boys cannot be raped, and if it is less than anal rape, then "thats ok". If a lad is abused by a woman, then the attitude often remains "lucky him" 

 

One cannot convict by association, Pell has always been a controversial figure due to adherence to pomp and tradition, and his own arrogance.  He was not on trial for his arrogance.

His behaviour and guidelines and administration of the Melbourne Solution was all about protecting church coffers. His arrogance led him to believe he was the "chief inquisitor" similar to the bad old days of doctrinal courts

 

Overwhelming evidence that the offence could not have happened in the manner alleged, and the fully informed judgments (not opinions) of 100% or the finest legal minds in the country, can not compete with the years of sustained vitriol by some media organisations.  People and media organisations share a trait of extreme resistance to admitting they got it wrong.

 

In regards to the cover up allegations, Pell has been vigorously investigated and there has never been an adverse finding.   It may well be the case that when the redacted parts of the Royal Commission transcripts are released in the coming weeks, that there is criticism of his actions.  As you say, these separate issues.

[Dap]

How incredibly disappointing, but not wholly unexpected. Such immense power is firmly fixed in place.

[Olmate]

3 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Overwhelming evidence that the offence could not have happened in the manner alleged, and the fully informed judgments (not opinions) of 100% or the finest legal minds in the country, can not compete with the years of sustained vitriol by some media organisations.  People and media organisations share a trait of extreme resistance to admitting they got it wrong.

 

In regards to the cover up allegations, Pell has been vigorously investigated and there has never been an adverse finding.   It may well be the case that when the redacted parts of the Royal Commission transcripts are released in the coming weeks, that there is criticism of his actions.  As you say, these separate issues.

Catholics or Masons, that’s the way it’s always been. Guess the Catholics have it!

[Mick501]

2 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Catholics or Masons, that’s the way it’s always been. Guess the Catholics have it!

This outcome is 100% based on irrefutable evidence.  Try it some time.  Tends to produce better outcomes than conspiracy theories.

[Olmate]

4 hours ago, Mick501 said:

I believe you are not rational, and ample evidence to support it.

I think Mick, your username is a dead giveaway!

[owl sees all]

4 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

This outcome is 100% based on irrefutable evidence.  Try it some time.  Tends to produce better outcomes than conspiracy theories.

What utter nonsense.

[RJRS1301]

11 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Catholics or Masons, that’s the way it’s always been. Guess the Catholics have it!

I am wondering where you studied Jurisprudence? 

[Olmate]

3 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

This outcome is 100% based on irrefutable evidence.  Try it some time.  Tends to produce better outcomes than conspiracy theories.

Tell us who gave evidence that at the time of the alleged offence Pell was elsewhere, there is none.The suggestion was that he was usually not alone or that he usually was with other churchgoers after the mass. For some strange reason the victim seemed to recall the event very clearly! 100%  irrefutable, now your really dreaming!  

[ncc1701d]

20 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

NCC, Pell did not say that RichterQC his barrister said it, and then withdrew his words as being unaccpetable. 

I think he was offering a comment on the "scale of the alledged act" as opposed to rape/buggery/etc, not a wise thing to do, as most barristers in Australia never give coment  to the press, the same jurors do not.

 

Quote

This is no more than a plain, vanilla sexual penetration case where a child is not volunteering or actively participating

(Richter)

 

he was representing Pell and trying to downplay the abuse. I don’t know how else to see it. 

Edited April 8, 2020 by ncc1701d

[Olmate]

5 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I am wondering where you studied Jurisprudence? 

Fairly common knowledge in vic police circles!

 

 

 

 

[RJRS1301]

15 minutes ago, ncc1701d said:

(Richter)

 

he was representing Pell and trying to downplay the abuse. I don’t know how else to see it. 

This was AFTER the guilty verdict, at the plea hearing, Richter was attempting to note there were no aggravating features to Pell’s offending, for which his client had been found guilty at a time . So he (Richter as he must) had accepted the verdict of guilty, respecting the decison and making a plea on behalf of his client. It is expected the barristers attempt to get a lower sentence for their client.

He has also apologised for his wording. It was not during the trial it was after , at the plea hearing.

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by RJRS1301

[ncc1701d]

4 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

This was AFTER the guilty verdict, at the plea hearing, Richter was attempting to note there were no aggravating features to Pell’s offending, for which his client had been found guilty at a time . So he had accepted the verdict of guilty, respecting the decison and making a plea on behalf of his client. It is expected the barristers attempt to get a lower sentence for their client.

He has also apologised for his wording. It was not during the trial it was after , at the plea hearing.

 

For me, that is irrelevant. All through the trial richter claims nothing happened, then Pell gets convicted, so in an attempt to get a lower sentence, his crack lawyer decides to try and downplay the acts as “vanilla”. The whole ordeal is disgusting. No doubt richter is now saying it never happened again. 

[Olmate]

16 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

This was AFTER the guilty verdict, at the plea hearing, Richter was attempting to note there were no aggravating features to Pell’s offending, for which his client had been found guilty at a time . So he (Richter as he must) had accepted the verdict of guilty, respecting the decison and making a plea on behalf of his client. It is expected the barristers attempt to get a lower sentence for their client.

He has also apologised for his wording. It was not during the trial it was after , at the plea hearing.

 

Oh that’s ok then. I,ll be gentle! Seriously keep digging..

[RJRS1301]

3 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Oh that’s ok then. I,ll be gentle! Seriously keep digging..

Do you even understand how  a plea hearing works, or why they do plea hearings?  Your response indicates you do not.

Edited April 8, 2020 by RJRS1301

[canthai55]

He was tried for 2. Found guilty. And now some robed AH's let him out.

And people wonder why there is no respect for the Courts of Law.

If he did 2, very good chance he did 200, or 2,000, or ...

If they would have threw him in Gen Pop the day he was found guilty then this whole farce would not have happened.

 

[Lacessit]

6 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Geez, I dint know.  Maybe have the allegations investigated and tested at court if warranted?  I know these ideas sound crazy to you and you'd prefer just to listen to your inner hatred drummed up by the ABC, but sometimes it can be better  just to think, "what the heck.   I'm going to give rational thought a try."

How about you declare your religious affiliations, then you can run that statement concerning rational thought past me again. Pure comedy.

[spiekerjozef]

And now he's gonna live in the vatican where they can do what they want with every choir boy. Protected dirty bastards.

[Olmate]

4 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Do you even understand how  a plea hearing works, or why they do plea hearings?  Your response indicates you do not.

Been at plenty, most times it’s a bs sob story. Where did you get the idea it’s acceptable for a barrister or QC to lie to the court? Hardly a claim to fame either .

[Olmate]

1 minute ago, spiekerjozef said:

And now he's gonna live in the vatican where they can do what they want with every choir boy. Protected dirty bastards.

He.s got to get there first, travel restrictions and all that entails. No doubt his protection detail is funded by the Vatican as well as his legal teams.Hope the Nuns in Kew are well behaved! 

[RJRS1301]

23 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Been at plenty, most times it’s a bs sob story. Where did you get the idea it’s acceptable for a barrister or QC to lie to the court? Hardly a claim to fame either .

Ritcher did not lie, he stated that since his client had been found guilty, he presented a "mitigation". For which he later apologised, for his words, not for mitigtion. Richter does not need defending,his enviable reputation stands 

Edited April 8, 2020 by RJRS1301

[RJRS1301]

20 minutes ago, Olmate said:

He.s got to get there first, travel restrictions and all that entails. No doubt his protection detail is funded by the Vatican as well as his legal teams.Hope the Nuns in Kew are well behaved! 

Update misinformed he is no longer in Kew. 

[RJRS1301]

26 minutes ago, spiekerjozef said:

And now he's gonna live in the vatican where they can do what they want with every choir boy. Protected dirty bastards.

Pure speculation as to where he ends up. 

[Olmate]

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Update misinformed he is no longer in Kew. 

There you go, on the move to the first safe house.!

[RJRS1301]

37 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

If he did 2

He has now been acquitted, whether you accept the decision of the High Court is up to you, but to stand he did it after the decision has been reversed open the possibilty of you being litigated against in any other forum.

 

[Olmate]

18 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Ritcher did not lie, he stated that since his client had been found guilty, he presented a "mitigation". For which he later apologised, for his words, not for mitigtion. Richter does not need defending,his enviable reputation stands 

His reputation will no doubt qualify him for similar cases, perhaps even Malka Leifer! Oops wrong faith ....

[RJRS1301]

4 minutes ago, Olmate said:

His reputation will no doubt qualify him for similar cases, perhaps even Malka Leifer! Oops wrong faith ....

Proves you know about about as much of his lineage, as you do about astrophysics 

 

[Olmate]

22 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Proves you know about about as much of his lineage, as you do about astrophysics 

 

 Not into silks lineage, particularly of his speciality  ? Good to know tho who you think is a good guy! 

[RJRS1301]

1 minute ago, Olmate said:

 Not into silks lineage, particularly of his speciality  ? Good to know tho who you think is a good guy! 

You brought up his heritage, by you reference to another accused offender

I am sure if you had half the ethics of Richter, you would be twice the person you present here.

I am proud to support the HC and Richter, I listen to and read and comprehend evidence, whoich you seem to ignore, not driven by populism and bias