The Law Cardinal Pell

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Donners said:
It is standard practice at the commencement of a trial where separate trials have been or are likely to be ordered.

Less common at such an early stage as has been done here, but this is an obviously uncommon matter given the very high level of media coverage and the possibility that some of the charges have been the subject of public allegations.

It is in the interests of both prosecution and defence (and ultimately the community) for such an order to ensure that severed trials are as fair as possible.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
My criminal law experience was literally in another century, and a fair way back in that century at that.
These days it's limited to occasional meals with a judge.;)
 
FredLeDeux said:
Thank you.
My criminal law experience was literally in another century, and a fair back in that century at that.
These days it's limited to occasional meals with a judge.;)
Click to expand...

Ha, no worries at all. Sex offences laws change at such a ridiculous rate that it's hard to keep up with being in the area, let alone being out of it.

Just in the last month it's changed dramatically (with implications for this case), and a pending special leave application could cause further upheaval.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Donners said:
Ha, no worries at all. Sex offences laws change at such a ridiculous rate that it's hard to keep up with being in the area, let alone being out of it.

Just in the last month it's changed dramatically (with implications for this case), and a pending special leave application could cause further upheaval.
Click to expand...

Yes, the judge I mentioned is actually pretty heavily involved in that area, and I get the strong impression from comments and conversations that he and the other judges would just like them to stop. ;)
 
Garlic muncher said:
Everyone has a history mate, you are not special.

You have lost the plot big time.

This is not the Hird thread, you don't have a lynch mob backing you up
Click to expand...
So you can't answer a simple question wog boy?
Nup won't,or can't?
 
Lebbo73 said:
More losing
Click to expand...
Tell me Lebanon73,why do you have faith that George Pell is "not" a filthy coniving little paedo,like most of us believe him to be?
Emperical,I know it's hard that word,it doesn't suit your 5000 yr old earth argument,but cough it up nonetheless!
 
chelseacarlton said:
Tell me Lebanon73,why do you have faith that George Pell is "not" a filthy coniving little paedo,like most of us believe him to be?
Emperical,I know it's hard that word,it doesn't suit your 5000 yr old earth argument,but cough it up nonetheless!
Click to expand...
Nice touch with the 5000yr old earth bs. I wouldn't have a clue how old the earth is. Neither would scientists.
I don't have a clue whether he is guilty or not. Unlike you, I am prepared to give the bloke a fair trial. Your continuous slander defines you and who you are!
 
chelseacarlton said:
Tell me Lebanon73,why do you have faith that George Pell is "not" a filthy coniving little paedo,like most of us believe him to be?
Emperical,I know it's hard that word,it doesn't suit your 5000 yr old earth argument,but cough it up nonetheless!
Click to expand...
But thats the problem with your position.

Pell doesn't have to prove he is innocent.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I don't know, but I presume the prosecution will be wanting all charges heard together, and the defence will want them heard separately. If they are to be heard separately, the details of the other charges need, for the sake of a fair hearing, to be suppressed.
Click to expand...
Just on this - on what basis does a judge decide if they are heard together or separately.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gavin Excell said:
on what basis does a judge decide if they are heard together or separately.
Click to expand...

Ha, well that is the question right now. It's a very complex and ever-changing area.

In very brief terms, it depends on whether there is a tendency established in the accused's behaviour (tendency evidence), or if there are circumstances which make it improbable that the allegations are false (coincidence evidence). The former is probably more relevant here.

As to what tendency means, Vic used to have a very restrictive approach, far more so than other jurisdictions, which often led to what many considered absurd and unjust results. The High Court has twice in the last year or so found Victoria's approach to be wrong.

In theory, the test now should be whether the disputed evidence, taken as a whole (including multiple complainants) makes it significantly more likely that the offence occurred. That has to be high enough to outweigh the prejudicial effect of hearing from multiple complainants.

In the case of Robert Hughes, the most recent High Court case, the tendency was to engage opportunistically in sexual activity with underage girls despite a high risk of detection.

The Victorian Court of Appeal has shown signs of trying to get around that decision, so there is another pending High Court case which may clarify the position further.
 
Donners said:
Ha, well that is the question right now. It's a very complex and ever-changing area.

In very brief terms, it depends on whether there is a tendency established in the accused's behaviour (tendency evidence), or if there are circumstances which make it improbable that the allegations are false (coincidence evidence). The former is probably more relevant here.

As to what tendency means, Vic used to have a very restrictive approach, far more so than other jurisdictions, which often led to what many considered absurd and unjust results. The High Court has twice in the last year or so found Victoria's approach to be wrong.

In theory, the test now should be whether the disputed evidence, taken as a whole (including multiple complainants) makes it significantly more likely that the offence occurred. That has to be high enough to outweigh the prejudicial effect of hearing from multiple complainants.

In the case of Robert Hughes, the most recent High Court case, the tendency was to engage opportunistically in sexual activity with underage girls despite a high risk of detection.

The Victorian Court of Appeal has shown signs of trying to get around that decision, so there is another pending High Court case which may clarify the position further.
Click to expand...

How does the court (pre-trial or during the trial) deal with the possible issue, in multi-complaints/complainants trials, that evidence is heard by the jury because it is admissible in relation to one complaint, but is also heard by the jury despite the fact that it is inadmissible and unfairly prejudicial in relation to another one of the complaints?
 
FredLeDeux said:
How does the court (pre-trial or during the trial) deal with the possible issue, in multi-complaints/complainants trials, that evidence is heard by the jury because it is admissible in relation to one complaint, but is also heard by the jury despite the fact that it is inadmissible and unfairly prejudicial in relation to another one of the complaints?
Click to expand...

Through careful directions, and emphasis of the need for separate consideration. A judge I know dubs such directions as metaphysical.

Even Vic, pre-Hughes, allowed such situations - eg. in Alexander. TK alleged buggery, ME alleged indecent assault, AA alleged both. TK's buggery was cross-admissible to AA's buggery, ME's indecent assault was cross-admissible to AA's indecent assault, but TK and ME were not cross-admissible.

Contrary to what one might expect, the Royal Commission's jury study showed that juries do indeed give separate consideration in such circumstances. This case turned out to be a perfect example - they were hung on TK's sole charge, had mixed acquittals and convictions on ME and convicted on AA.

This situation is less likely to occur today; this was an example of Rapson reasoning, which has been rejected by the High Court.
 
Donners said:
Through careful directions, and emphasis of the need for separate consideration. A judge I know dubs such directions as metaphysical.

Even Vic, pre-Hughes, allowed such situations - eg. in Alexander. TK alleged buggery, ME alleged indecent assault, AA alleged both. TK's buggery was cross-admissible to AA's buggery, ME's indecent assault was cross-admissible to AA's indecent assault, but TK and ME were not cross-admissible.

Contrary to what one might expect, the Royal Commission's jury study showed that juries do indeed give separate consideration in such circumstances. This case turned out to be a perfect example - they were hung on TK's sole charge, had mixed acquittals and convictions on ME and convicted on AA.

This situation is less likely to occur today; this was an example of Rapson reasoning, which has been rejected by the High Court.
Click to expand...
'ME' seems to be an unfortunate choice of nom de guerre for you to use. Knowing you somewhat, I'm assuming you weren't actually a participant in this case.:)
 
chelseacarlton said:
Posts thread about safe schools and paedophiles that haven't been charged,then sticks for one that has!
Logic
Click to expand...

Well actually it was not my thread, but MO is the charges are trumped up, i could be wrong, MO is he is paying for the sins of past priests and is being targeted by a group of people that would not dare target people such as Gary Dowsett.

Either way his life is destroyed.

I am not a catholic or even a practicing Christian
 
Garlic muncher said:
Well actually it was not my thread, but MO is the charges are trumped up, i could be wrong, MO is he is paying for the sins of past priests and is being targeted by a group of people that would not dare target people such as Gary Dowsett.

Either way his life is destroyed.

I am not a catholic or even a practicing Christian
Click to expand...

Best thing you've posted on BF :thumbsu:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top