Current Trial George Pell - Suppression Order Post Conviction *LIFTED

Remove this Banner Ad

Power Raid

Make me an Admin!
Oct 15, 2004
76,439
67,475
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Fremantle
Typical misreporting

He has been granted leave for appeal

Journalists should be jailed for misleading conduct
 

Log in to remove this ad.

deskc

Team Captain
Jan 10, 2014
535
403
AFL Club
Collingwood
You know what is stupid about this whole thing. The high court is saying that the jury got it wrong and the accuser lied to the court.
So you either have a legal system that relies on a jury or you have cases heard before only judges. This is a complete mess because it is just saying that our court system is useless. Even though I lean towards believing the victim in the case he should be put in front of the courts now for perjury. There is no more feeling sorry for him and praising how brave he was testifying because he was flat out lying and should be punished
 

Power Raid

Make me an Admin!
Oct 15, 2004
76,439
67,475
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Fremantle
You know what is stupid about this whole thing. The high court is saying that the jury got it wrong and the accuser lied to the court.
So you either have a legal system that relies on a jury or you have cases heard before only judges. This is a complete mess because it is just saying that our court system is useless. Even though I lean towards believing the victim in the case he should be put in front of the courts now for perjury. There is no more feeling sorry for him and praising how brave he was testifying because he was flat out lying and should be punished

In the case a jury got it wrong, that can be due to an incorrect interpretation of the law. So that is grounds for appeal.

Further an unreliable witness is another. Mind you, how many cops would we have in jail if every unreliable witness faced prosecution? It is a sad indictment on our society that so many people lie in court.
 

Opine

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
7,352
12,275
AFL Club
Carlton
Yes, the jury failed to consider the possibility of innocence apparently but WTF else were they there for?
Not there to consider possibility of innocence. Only there to establish whether starting presumption of innocence was overcome beyond reasonable doubt. If an alternate explanation for the circumstances put forward was reasonably possible, no need to be probable or certain, then that should constitute reasonable doubt. In anycase, doubt felt in the minds of the judges was doubt that the jury must have had.
 

deskc

Team Captain
Jan 10, 2014
535
403
AFL Club
Collingwood
Also the system seems to be set up for the defendant. He gets found guilty then appeals. Gets found guilty again then at the third time of trying gets found not guilty. It seems he could just keep going until found not guilty and then for some reason no one can appeal the high court decision.
Maybe another form of justice will get pell in the form of some hot lead
 

sideswipe

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 10, 2014
10,035
19,100
AFL Club
Collingwood
Typical misreporting

He has been granted leave for appeal

Journalists should be jailed for misleading conduct

Somewhat misreported there yourself buddy. Granted leave to appeal AND unanimously allowed the appeal. Guilty verdicts quashed and replaced with verdicts of acquittal of all charges.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Opine

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
7,352
12,275
AFL Club
Carlton
Must have had or should have had?
Good Q. If the appellate judges had a doubt, that same doubt is considered to be a doubt that the jury also had when it reached its finding; to my mind, that the jury reached finding of guilt despite having that doubt is what technically makes the finding unsafe. But maybe it doesn't really matter, because if it's a doubt that the jury should have had, which is now imposed, then its nonetheless a doubt the jury must have had.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kurve

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
19,337
43,193
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I think the "M test" dictates that it is "must" rather than "should" even though 'should' seems logical. Refer VSCA appeals decision @ 21

I'd like to read the judgement.
 

Carbine Chaos

So Petch
Apr 1, 2009
59,364
80,042
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Demons, Everton
Also the system seems to be set up for the defendant. He gets found guilty then appeals. Gets found guilty again then at the third time of trying gets found not guilty. It seems he could just keep going until found not guilty and then for some reason no one can appeal the high court decision.
Maybe another form of justice will get pell in the form of some hot lead
If the high court decision was appealed, where would you have that appeal be heard?
 

Kurve

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
19,337
43,193
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Today's or the Vic Supreme Court of Appeal judgement? if you mean today's; I also would like to read it. If you mean the VSCA judgement I can send you a link.

I'd appreciate the link thanks, I did scan it one time but might need a refresher. Thank you. I can wait for today's.
 

nick1408

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2010
1,783
1,841
Why?
AFL Club
Richmond

nick1408

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2010
1,783
1,841
Why?
AFL Club
Richmond
People in the know - Is it an unusual thing for the High court to say that there is a significant posibility of an innocent man being convicted?
 

Kurve

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
19,337
43,193
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Who'd have thought Pell's accusers, Victoria Police and a prosecutor, a jury and the presiding judge wouldn't be enough to hold him to a conviction?

128 This conclusion makes it unnecessary to consider whether the respondent's concession, that if the verdicts in relation to the offences charged in the first incident are unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence then it follows that the same conclusion should be reached in relation to the verdict concerning the offence charged in the second incident, amounts to a mode of reasoning that contravenes ss 44F and 44G of the Jury Directions Act. Orders

129 For these reasons, there should be the following orders:

1. Special leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal treated as instituted and heard instanter and allowed.

3. Set aside order 2 of the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 21 August 2019 and, in its place, order that: (a) the appeal be allowed; and Kiefel CJ Bell J Gageler J Keane J Nettle J Gordon J Edelman J 36. (b) the appellant's convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place.
 

holybishop

Premiership Player
Oct 9, 2006
3,197
3,656
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
GC Suns, Western Warriors/Scorchers
118 It may be accepted that the Court of Appeal majority did not err in holding that A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt. The likelihood of two choirboys in their gowns being able to slip away from the procession without detection; of finding altar wine in an unlocked cupboard; and of the applicant being able to manoeuvre his vestments to expose his penis are considerations that may be put to one side. It remains that the evidence of witnesses, whose honesty was not in question, (i) placed the applicant on the steps of the Cathedral for at least ten minutes after Mass on 15 and 22 December 1996; (ii) placed him in the company of Portelli when he returned to the priests' sacristy to remove his vestments; and (iii) described continuous traffic into and out of the priests' sacristy for ten to 15 minutes after the altar servers completed their bows to the crucifix.

119 Upon the assumption that the jury assessed A's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the compounding improbabilities caused by the unchallenged evidence summarised in (i), (ii) and (iii) above nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt. Plainly they did. Making full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility in relation to charges one to four that an innocent person has been convicted.
 

Remove this Banner Ad