Religion Pell Guilty!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Number37 said:
There is no if, the verdict is guilty. The appeal is about procedural not substantive law.
Click to expand...

Why does your side do this? Why is it that you feel you must enter our minds and control our thoughts. Why must we word things in a particular way to satisfy you. You wonder why more and more people consider the progressive side of politics increasingly insufferable. It's because you are. You asked a question. I answered it. In good faith.

I was abbreviating. "In circumstances where the verdict is guilty, the sentence must follow the verdict." Is that better?

Your second sentence makes no sense with respect to the Pell case. It reads like some lefty academic trying to bluff his way through a conversation sounding clever.

The guilty finding is being appealed. On its merits. The appellant is arguing that no jury could have come to that verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Number37 said:
That you simply don't understand how the legal process works makes me a lefty academic trying to bluff his way through a conversation sounding clever?

But I understand that your only port of call is an ad-hom because the rest of argument lacks the substance to form an argument.
Click to expand...

Ok. Tell me please how the appeal is about procedural law.
 
Number37 said:
You just repeated the same nonsense with the addition of a few weasel words that doesn't actually change, at all, what you said originally.
The verdict was guilty. Pell remains guilty. Just because he has lodged an appeal it does not change his status as guilty, unless, and until, the appeals court sees fit to overturn it.
Click to expand...

The context of your question was “if” the guilty verdict was upheld.
 
FredLeDeux said:
What Marr is saying is that if he wins on the first point, the DPP will appeal it to the High Court.
Click to expand...

Possibly. Depends on what the Appeals Court says.

Also presumes the High Court will hear it.

High Court appeals can be over fairly quickly when its the Government leading the charge.

Plus given his age I suspect that will see it sped up.

How will people take it I wonder. Hard to believe in law and order and also say he's guilty...
 
HairyO said:
Possibly. Depends on what the Appeals Court says.

Also presumes the High Court will hear it.

High Court appeals can be over fairly quickly when its the Government leading the charge.

Plus given his age I suspect that will see it sped up.

How will people take it I wonder. Hard to believe in law and order and also say he's guilty...
Click to expand...
I would have thought the DPP will pretty well automatically appeal any C/A decision to over-rule the jury's verdict, unless the C/A comes up with some staggeringly persuasive reasons for its decision.

It's interesting that they've drafted in Weinberg for the appeal, presumably to use his experience in criminal trial procedure and practice.
 
FredLeDeux said:
I would have thought the DPP will pretty well automatically appeal any C/A decision to over-rule the jury's verdict, unless the C/A comes up with some staggeringly persuasive reasons for its decision.

It's interesting that they've drafted in Weinberg for the appeal, presumably to use his experience in criminal trial procedure and practice.
Click to expand...

It really depends. A unanimous decision one way has actually ended up unanimous the other way but not often.

Of course it presumes any of his 3 points get up.

I will say I was intrigued that claims made on behalf of a dead person who had never told another soul being given such prominence didnt sit well with me.

Especially when there was a living person able to tell his story.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

HairyO said:
Possibly. Depends on what the Appeals Court says.

Also presumes the High Court will hear it.

High Court appeals can be over fairly quickly when its the Government leading the charge.

Plus given his age I suspect that will see it sped up.

How will people take it I wonder. Hard to believe in law and order and also say he's guilty...
Click to expand...
Interesting how some people (not sure of your history so not saying you) are all of a sudden very interested in criminal justice when it impacts on a pedo priest, not so much when it’s someone from a demonised minority group, be it aboriginals, Sudanese youth etc
 
Happy Mastenator said:
Interesting how some people (not sure of your history so not saying you) are all of a sudden very interested in criminal justice when it impacts on a pedo priest, not so much when it’s someone from a demonised minority group, be it aboriginals, Sudanese youth etc
Click to expand...

Im always interested. I believe in innocence until proven guilty and I like our appeals system.

Id rather the occasional criminal go free than innocent people go to gaol.

It tends to be high profile cases which bring more commentary.
 
FredLeDeux said:
I would have thought the DPP will pretty well automatically appeal any C/A decision to over-rule the jury's verdict, unless the C/A comes up with some staggeringly persuasive reasons for its decision.

It's interesting that they've drafted in Weinberg for the appeal, presumably to use his experience in criminal trial procedure and practice.
Click to expand...
They have to have a reason to appeal and the HC can decline to hear it. It all depends what happens in the appeal, Marr trying to fit all these cases into generics with the appeal court being over ruled by the HC is not correct, he even admits Pell's appeal in part based on an unsafe jury verdict has not been fully tested, and the case of the st Joseph's priest going to the HC shortly is not necessarily reflective of Pell's circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Number37 said:
If they overturn based on 'no reasonable jury' they have their reason.
Click to expand...
You have to have a legal reason why this is wrong, look given the complexity of this case, if the appeal court over turns it the DPP will probably be able to find a reason to appeal to the HC, it's just not an automatic step as Marr paints it.
 
The Bauer case which the High Court overturned is not like the Pell case in any way. The Tyrrell case is far more similar but the HC haven't heard that yet.

Marr's article is wishful garbage. Almost as though he's laying the groundwork for a successful appeal.
 
Number37 said:
Marr was pointing out that if they use 'no reasonable jury' as reasons then the not only will the appeal be automatic but the HC will follow its own reasons and give the Vic CA another slap down. As they should.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that given if the Appeal gets up at the SCA it will be because they have followed the HCA process?
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Why would they do that given if the Appeal gets up at the SCA it will be because they have followed the HCA process?
Click to expand...
Number37 said:
Marr was pointing out that if they use 'no reasonable jury' as reasons then the not only will the appeal be automatic but the HC will follow its own reasons and give the Vic CA another slap down. As they should.
Click to expand...

Marr seems to think it all straight forward and mechanical it is not, there is no automatic right to appeal. Also as Bruce says if the HC had already made decisions on pretty much the same set of circumstances it's unlikely the court of appeal is going to keep making the opposite decision.
 
Sainteric said:
Marr seems to think it all straight forward and mechanical it is not, there is no automatic right to appeal. Also as Bruce says if the HC had already made decisions on pretty much the same set of circumstances it's unlikely the court of appeal is going to keep making the opposite decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s not quite right. The SCA has gone against the HCA on how to view through the eyes of a jury. My point was more that if the SCA follow the HCA process which favours Pell then the HCA can hardly criticise them for that. The HCA decision was in 1994 and a lot has changed since then.

On the one hand, there is a growing sense that juries can’t be relied upon in higher profile cases in an era of social media influence.

On the other, the law has evolved to make it easier to prosecute historical sexual offences.

It is uncharted territory in a sense.

But my point was that Marr’s piece is incoherent on the subject. The Bauer case is do dissimilar it doesn’t bear mentioning in the same discussion.
 
Odd behavior to not appeal if his conviction isn't overturned. Sounds guilty as hell

And why would his lawyer argue the cases were vanilla rather than they never happened at all? Even his lawyer knows he did it
 
Benny78 said:
Odd behavior to not appeal if his conviction isn't overturned. Sounds guilty as hell

And why would his lawyer argue the cases were vanilla rather than they never happened at all? Even his lawyer knows he did it
Click to expand...

1. He won’t be appealing the sentence. No one has said anything about whether he’d appeal the conviction itself. The sentence is unappealable in light of the conviction.

2. You are not allowed, as a matter of law, to argue the crime wasn’t committed at a plea hearing. You have to, by law, presume guilt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top