Weinberg is retired from full time judging and is brought back occasionally for use as reserve judge. That may mean he is not as fully up to date on the latest legal principles in force as the other two appeal judges and the trial judge.The HC should knock it back, the CA judgment was an absolute shellacking.
I don't know much about Weinberg, but I wouldn't be surprised. His dissenting judgment was weak.
Weinberg was a full time appeals court judge for 9 years. Chief Justice Ferguson has been an appeals court judge for 5 years and a trial judge for 9 years. Justice Maxwell is the most experienced of the lot being an appeals court judge for 14 years.
Two justices, one with an equal amount of judging time as Weinberg and one with far more time appeals court judging time than Weinberg, overruled his decision.
The law was changed in Victoria recently so the evidence of a victim can be used if the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the victim is truthful. That’s something that Weinberg and all the legal “experts” whinging about this decision haven’t realised or choose not to mention. There’s no way the HC will overturn it on that point because that’s what the legislation says and the trial and appeal judges were acting in accordance with it, Weinberg wasn’t.
If Pell’s supporters want that legal principle gone and Pell to have a hope of being released they’re going to have to go to parliament and pass new legislation removing the allowance of that evidence standard in a criminal trial. But I don’t think a political party will be too popular in the electorate if they tried to pass a law making it harder for child molesters to be convicted.