Posted on 03/04/2019 11:35:17 PM PST by naturalman1975
Top barrister, Robert Richter QC, will no longer represent Cardinal George Pell in court for his sentence and appeal, saying he is too emotional and angry about the guilty verdict handed down by the jury.
Pell was convicted of sexually abusing two choirboys while he was the archbishop of Melbourne in the 1990s.
He is due to be sentenced on March 13 but has already lodged an appeal.
"I'm too angry and upset at the outcome to bring the objectivity that an appeal requires," he said.
Mr Richter said he will still be available to help Pell's legal team and is convinced he had a strong case in overturning what he called "a questionable conviction".
"I will not be arguing the appeal myself simply because I believe the Cardinal deserves someone who can be dispassionate enough to present the case to the Court of Appeal," he said.
"I'm too involved and I have been too involved for too long.
"I have not abandoned the team and in fact I believe the appeal should be conducted by people who are not involved in the trial — but I have every faith in the Cardinal's case."
Last week, Mr Richter issued an apology after he described Pell's abuse of a 13-year-old choir boy as "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case".
In a statement he said he had reflected on what he termed "the terrible choice of a phrase".
However Mr Richter insisted his decision was not influenced by the controversy.
"Not in the least," he said.
"I thought I'd done a professional job here and I thought there would be an appropriate result.
"I am disappointed but the appeal will determine whether my disappointment and anger at the jury's verdict was valid."
(Excerpt) Read more at abc.net.au ...
Why would a plain vanilla sexual penetration case between an adult male and a 13 year old boy not result in a guilty verdict? Do they have looser laws on consent?
It would not be relevant to the finding of guilt. It could be relevant to sentencing.
Are there no statutory rape laws in Australia? 15 will get you 20 is well known enough in America to be put in a song.
RE: why would a plain vanilla...
It’s NOT “plain vanilla.” The cardinal was never alone with the boys, and could not physically have done what they claimed. No plausible case; bitterly anti-Catholic prosecutors. This is a star chamber punishment of a conservative.
Of course there are.
The age of consent in Victoria is 16 (although no crime is committed if both participants are over 12 and no more than two years apart in age).
This article doesn’t do a good job explaining the context 0 mostly because almost anybody reading in Australia, would already be aware of it. The ‘vanilla’ comment had nothing to do with guilt - it had already been conceded that there was a guilty verdict. The question relates to at what level the crime is at for sentencing purposes - the maximum penalty on each charge is ten years, but it can be quite a bit less.
I know basically nothing about Australia's legal system and I know even less about this case.For example,I don't if this guilty verdict was handed down by a judge or a jury.
It's easy to imagine someone making a false accusation against a Catholic priest/Bishop...for purely monetary reasons,mental illness,or both.It's also easy to imagine a judge or juror voting "guilty" out of personal bias.The Catholic Church is one of the most hated "organizations" in the Western world today...at least by "progressives".
It *is* difficult for me to imagine why a lawyer would refuse to represent a client because he/she disagreed with a guilty verdict.It's my understanding that in the British legal system a "QC" is a lawyer whose achievements and experience have earned him/her a particularly high level of respect.Perhaps this "QC" is trying to send a message here.
I think that Richter has not done well in this case. He is a big name lawyer, but if I was Pell I would be asking him to step aside.
Question: Those defending and making excuses convicted Cardinal Pell, were you also defending and excusing the Penn State predators until even that became indefensible?
A jury - in a second trial after the first resulted in a hung jury. Both trials were held more or less in secret - the media were not allowed to even tell people they were happening, although if somebody knew they could have attended.
It *is* difficult for me to imagine why a lawyer would refuse to represent a client because he/she disagreed with a guilty verdict.It's my understanding that in the British legal system a "QC" is a lawyer whose achievements and experience have earned him/her a particularly high level of respect.Perhaps this "QC" is trying to send a message here.
The lawyer involved has said he rarely participates in appeals where he as lost the case - he says it's hard for a lawyer to be objective in such a case so they should hand over to somebody else. But he has also been unusually open in saying he finds this verdict particularly strange. It seems fairly clear he feels there has been a genuine miscarriage of justice here.
And, yes, a QC is a Queen's Counsel - the term SC or Senior Counsel is also increasingly used - these are barristers who have been judged by their peers to be the best of the best.
There are many reasons why the case against him does not seem credible. But I assume there will be an appeal and the Court of Appeals will rule on that - if they deny the appeal, I'll be inclined to accept the verdict at that point - but only a few months ago, they overturned a verdict against the former Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, on the grounds he had not been able to receive a fair trial and he was a far less hated, and far less attacked figure than Cardinal Pell.
I didn't know Jerry Sandusky was targeted for destruction by Penn State after he performed an audit of its finances that uncovered not only malfeasance but blatant criminality implicating many past and present administrators as well as prominent and influential alumni.
believe nothing from taxpayer-funded ABC. over a billion Australian dollars a year and they spew out hatred against President Trump 24/7.
they hate Cardinal Pell.
wait for the appeal process. nothing odd about changes in the legal team. perfectly normal.
Being a huge fan of the TV series "Rumpole of the Bailey" (don't know if you're familiar with it) as well as a fan of "The Escape Artist" I had a hunch that a being a "QC" is a big deal in British/Canadian/Australian courtrooms.
And as for miscarriages of justice...they're certainly not unheard of in even the the best judicial systems...US,Canada,Britain,Australia.As you probably know here in the US the advent of DNA technology has resulted in more than a few guilty verdicts handed before its appearance being overturned.
Milo Yiannopolis’ comments posted elsewhere on this Forum don't address the trial, but explain Pell’s inconvenience to the Vatican Leftists as a swamp-drainer. The accusations conveniently prevented Pell from doing that. (How lucky for the Left. :-/)
That should read:
I KNOW THE SON OF A B*TCH IS GUILTY AND I JUST CANNOT STOMACH GETTING UP THERE AN DEFENDING HIM AGAIN.
that should have read:
‘a plain vanilla, DIPPED IN CHOCOLATE, penetration . . .
BTW does this guy believe that screwing a 13 year old is the plain vanilla stuff that is going on and no big deal???? who the hell is this guy??? a pervert himself
Sorry but I don’t know enough about the details of the case to have an idea of the justice of the verdict. So it’s safe to assume you would be comfortable leaving your child in this man’s care?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.