Religion Pell Guilty!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Prof Gans from Melb Law School ....

However, Australian appeals (and British, Canadian and New Zealand ones) differ from American ones in an important way. Anyone found guilty of any crime here can also argue that the jury’s verdict was simply wrong. Pell has asked the Court of Appeal to rule that his jury ought to have had a reasonable doubt about his guilt. The formal ground is that the jury’s verdict is "unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence". English courts ask the same question in a simpler way: is the verdict unsafe?
Click to expand...

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...nce-george-pell-will-win-20190531-p51ta4.html
 
Given how our society is beset by identity politics at the moment, as much, if not worse on the right even though they pretend it is only on the Left, if the Court of Appeal rules the jury verdict unsafe, it will do severe damage, paradoxically, to the rule of law and respect for the courts as an institution.

It will be seen as rich old white people from a big institution where people dress up in funny uniforms and use weird language and incomprehensible "rules" to tell people what to do employing tricks to get another rich old white person who dresses up in funny uniforms and uses weird language and incomprehensible "rules" off and set free.

The crowing from the likes of Bolt, Henderson, Devine and co will make it all the worse.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

JeanLucGoddard said:
Given how our society is beset by identity politics at the moment, as much, if not worse on the right even though they pretend it is only on the Left, if the Court of Appeal rules the jury verdict unsafe, it will do severe damage, paradoxically, to the rule of law and respect for the courts as an institution.
Click to expand...

Or it is proof of a system working.

Pauline Hanson was opposed to the appeals process until an Appeals court overturned her criminal conviction.
 
HairyO said:
Or it is proof of a system working.

Pauline Hanson was opposed to the appeals process until an Appeals court overturned her criminal conviction.
Click to expand...

A system working for who?
 
HairyO said:
People who shouldnt be in gaol.

Better for the occasional criminal going free than innocent people locked up.
Click to expand...

But we know that the vast majority of people currently in jail shouldn't be there, they should be in rehab or mental health institutions.

If Pell gets off having been able to pay Bret Walker SC to argue in front of judges from the same ilk that a victim was making it up, well, hmmmmm, that's really not going to play well.
 
JeanLucGoddard said:
But we know that the vast majority of people currently in jail shouldn't be there, they should be in rehab or mental health institutions.
Click to expand...

That is simply not true. Some, sure. Vast majority is just victimhood.

What if Pell had said he was a sick man and thats why he did it. A couple of years getting treatment and then hes free?
 
Gough said:
Two tiered legal system. The nonce on legal aid does his time, the nonce with the backing of the Catholic church and the 10k a day silk has a chance of walking.
Click to expand...

You have a very low opinion of legal aid. One of the smartest people Ive ever met chose to work at legal aid instead of chasing the millions and millions on offer from the big law firms.
 
Gough said:
Two tiered legal system. The nonce on legal aid does his time, the nonce with the backing of the Catholic church and the 10k a day silk has a chance of walking.
Click to expand...

That's exactly it. One rule for them, one rule for the rest of us.
 
HairyO said:
That is simply not true. Some, sure. Vast majority is just victimhood.

What if Pell had said he was a sick man and thats why he did it. A couple of years getting treatment and then hes free?
Click to expand...

Yes, if he'd admitted guilt it would have been far preferable.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

HairyO said:
You have a very low opinion of legal aid. One of the smartest people Ive ever met chose to work at legal aid instead of chasing the millions and millions on offer from the big law firms.
Click to expand...
Do you think the man on the Clapham omnibus for example, accused of the same crimes as Pell would have had access to the same sort of representation that he's enjoyed if legal aid were picking up the tab?
 
HairyO said:
You have a very low opinion of legal aid. One of the smartest people Ive ever met chose to work at legal aid instead of chasing the millions and millions on offer from the big law firms.
Click to expand...
Legal aid is hilariously underfunded. They are very clever people crammed into a small room like battery hens with massive caseloads. They don't have time to actually defend their clients in any meaningful sense.
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
Innocent people. If they find the judgement incorrect based on the evidence how is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Yeah righto, we're talking about the Victorian justice system, the one that knew police were running defendant's lawyer as an informant for years and not only did nothing about it, but fought tooth and nail to stop anything being done about it.
 
Theseventhhamster said:
Legal aid is hilariously underfunded. They are very clever people crammed into a small room like battery hens with massive caseloads. They don't have time to actually defend their clients in any meaningful sense.
Click to expand...

There are SCs and QCs who do work through legal aid, as well as the Aboriginal Legal Service. Sure, they dont have the same money, but that only gets you so far.

The real problem is for the middle class who dont qualify for legal aid and cant afford $3,000 a day for lawyers.
 
HairyO said:
There are SCs and QCs who do work through legal aid, as well as the Aboriginal Legal Service. Sure, they dont have the same money, but that only gets you so far.

The real problem is for the middle class who dont qualify for legal aid and cant afford $3,000 a day for lawyers.
Click to expand...
No the real problem is the chronic underfunding of legal aid that I described above.
 
JeanLucGoddard said:
And yes, it is true.

https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/getattachment/5188692a-35b6-411f-907e-3e7704f45e17
Click to expand...

The most common disadvantage is unemployment. Not something which can be cured in a mental institution. Nor something which should be considered a defence for any crime.

What it does mean is the prisons should have a far stronger focus on training, and have serious training / qualifications linked to reductions in sentence.

The mental illness rate is double the normal rate, but Im not sure if that is the case going in, or if they develop depression once in prison (I dare say a heap do).

I have no problem with gaol being a deterrent, and also a way of keeping bad seeds away from society, but I do think a lot more can be done to stop recidivism.
 
JeanLucGoddard said:
Given how our society is beset by identity politics at the moment, as much, if not worse on the right even though they pretend it is only on the Left, if the Court of Appeal rules the jury verdict unsafe, it will do severe damage, paradoxically, to the rule of law and respect for the courts as an institution.

It will be seen as rich old white people from a big institution where people dress up in funny uniforms and use weird language and incomprehensible "rules" to tell people what to do employing tricks to get another rich old white person who dresses up in funny uniforms and uses weird language and incomprehensible "rules" off and set free.

The crowing from the likes of Bolt, Henderson, Devine and co will make it all the worse.
Click to expand...

When the result goes your way the system works and IF it doesn't then its a problem for society? Well at least you lot are consistent on that.
 
Number37 said:
Pell guilty via jury verdict and innocent via appeal court judge verdict will only serve to further entrench the view as expressed earlier by JeanLuc.

It is a bad thing because it completely undermines the jury system.
Appeal courts should NEVER supplant the judgment of a jury for their own judgment.
The Vic CA in particular has over the years made this more and more common.
Click to expand...

This is an extraordinary post by one who professes an level of expertise in matters of a legal nature.
 
Poor Form said:
When the result goes your way the system works and IF it doesn't then its a problem for society? Well at least you lot are consistent on that.
Click to expand...

Ummm, you do understand that's exactly the position of "your side" right now?

Bolt et al.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top