Remove this Banner Ad

Religion Pell Guilty!

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Actually yes I do. I think the vast majority are angry with Pell about the widespread handling of child sexual abuse in the Church but at the same time have misgivings about his own alleged offending. I think many of those don't much care if he gets thrown in gaol as they perceive it as some sort of balance.
Click to expand...

Nah, the general reaction to his conviction was one of joy.
 
Contra Mundum said:
You reckon it will be sent back on the other grounds?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

I reckon it will be dismissed.

Its kind of like how everyone reckoned Essendon was defintely going to make finals this year, top 4, probably win the flag. But they aren't again, and everyone has all these reasons why.

They won't because they are shithouse. Pell won't walk because he's guilty.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

JeanLucGoddard said:
I reckon it will be dismissed.

Its kind of like how everyone reckoned Essendon was defintely going to make finals this year, top 4, probably win the flag. But they aren't again, and everyone has all these reasons why.

They won't because they are shithouse. Pell won't walk because he's guilty.
Click to expand...

Marcus Weinberg did his PhD thesis on common law jurisdiction jury verdicts being over turned on the grounds of unreasonableness - that actually might set the bar higher


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
JeanLucGoddard said:
He has every right to appeal.

I'm saying that if a jury verdict is overturned by judges, a lot of people will see the SWAMP in action. They'll see an establishment fix.

It is this kind of stuff that animates your mate Trump's voters, and Brexit.
Click to expand...

Id agree that there really should be very limited circumstances where a guilty verdict is converted to a not guilty verdict, as opposed to ordering a retrial.
 
HairyO said:
Id agree that there really should be very limited circumstances where a guilty verdict is converted to a not guilty verdict, as opposed to ordering a retrial.
Click to expand...

That follows the basis of the appeal. If the appeal gets up on the first ground (unreasonable verdict) that's a very hard ground to win and an assessment of the evidence. Therefore the finding of not guilty gets substituted in.

If it gets up on either of the other 2 grounds, it will be a retrial. Because the jury wasn't properly instructed.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
That follows the basis of the appeal. If the appeal gets up on the first ground (unreasonable verdict) that's a very hard ground to win and an assessment of the evidence. Therefore the finding of not guilty gets substituted in.

If it gets up on either of the other 2 grounds, it will be a retrial. Because the jury wasn't properly instructed.
Click to expand...
Neither of the other 2 grounds relate to instructions to the jury.

Both Walker and the C/A have expressly said today that the jury was properly instructed.
 
HairyO said:
Id agree that there really should be very limited circumstances where a guilty verdict is converted to a not guilty verdict, as opposed to ordering a retrial.
Click to expand...

It subverts the rationale for a jury trial BUT there are circumstances where juries share in a collective delusion - like what happened to Lindy. It would have to be extreme. I haven't look at it for a while but if I remember the text correctly its that no jury could have reasonably come to that verdict
 
Contra Mundum said:
Marcus Weinberg did his PhD thesis on common law jurisdiction jury verdicts being over turned on the grounds of unreasonableness - that actually might set the bar higher


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

https://insidestory.org.au/pells-judges/

“In the last three years, Weinberg ruled three jury verdicts unsafe, but rejected a further fifteen such arguments, a success rate of just one-in-six. More disturbingly for Pell, the other two judges ruled unsafe none of the jury verdicts they considered. For the chief justice, that simply reflects how few criminal appeals she hears, given the demands of administration and her commercial law background. But for Maxwell, the rate seems to reflect his own scepticism when it comes to reasonable doubts of guilt. He has been left unmoved by all nine unsafe verdict appeals he has heard since 2016, including two in whichboth of his fellow judges upheld the defendant’s appeal.

Past judgement counts are even worse than federal opinion polls as predictors of future decisions, because criminal appeals are just too varied and unsafe verdict appeals are a very select group.”
 

Remove this Banner Ad

ralphmalph said:
https://insidestory.org.au/pells-judges/

“In the last three years, Weinberg ruled three jury verdicts unsafe, but rejected a further fifteen such arguments, a success rate of just one-in-six. More disturbingly for Pell, the other two judges ruled unsafe none of the jury verdicts they considered. For the chief justice, that simply reflects how few criminal appeals she hears, given the demands of administration and her commercial law background. But for Maxwell, the rate seems to reflect his own scepticism when it comes to reasonable doubts of guilt. He has been left unmoved by all nine unsafe verdict appeals he has heard since 2016, including two in whichboth of his fellow judges upheld the defendant’s appeal.

Past judgement counts are even worse than federal opinion polls as predictors of future decisions, because criminal appeals are just too varied and unsafe verdict appeals are a very select group.”
Click to expand...

Don't disagree but I am just saying the fact that Marcus Weinberg knows this law inside out won't help the Appellant - they have got three of the best on that Panel
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
It wasn't right. The vast majority of the reaction I have witnessed could best be described as "unsympathetic discomfort".
Click to expand...

I didn't mean it was "right", I mean you do know why that was the reaction?

Those sharing your view that Pell is the victim of a conspiracy are in the very very small minority Bruce.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

It is possible that the C/A may uphold the conviction on the main offence, but allow the appeal on the later, less serious offence.
 
Number37 said:
How would you or anyone else know if the jury was influenced by other factors?
Even if they were influenced by other factors does that mean that Pell or any other accused is innocent?

It is up to the jury to decide if the evidence is sufficient. That is their entire purpose.
It is up to Pell's counsel to establish reasonable doubt.

If the jury got it soooooo wrong then it begs the question, why couldn't defence counsel establish reasonable doubt?

At best, there is a fine line between reasonable and unreasonable, it is not black and white, as some people want to make out.
As a result the verdict of the jury must be respected.
The HC has said as much.
Click to expand...

Look at some of the jury’s questions in the Vicky Price trial a few years

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/feb/21/vicky-pryce-case-jury-failure

The Gordon Wood case, the Skaf Bial case that led to Jury Act overhaul. The case in England on pedo priest where juror said he’d always wanted to ‘get’ a priest. Numerous cases in the U.S of especially minorities being unfairly convicted by jury.

I don’t know if jury was unfairly influenced in this case but as is everyone’s right, if they feel a decision was unjust they have a right to appeal. Can’t believe you seriously think otherwise.
 
XUwACXe.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Osho
USA Daniel Penny Not Guilty
Replies
4
Views
694
Osho
Osho

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top