Legal experts add weight to opinion of dissenting judge (Cardinal George Pell case - appeal?)

The Australian ^ | 22nd August 2019 | Chris Merritt

[naturalman1975]

Despite writing in dissent, judge Mark Weinberg dominated yesterday’s decision in George Pell’s appeal with a 204-page argument that can be summed up in one line: the cardinal’s conviction is unsafe.

The majority disagreed but Weinberg’s detailed compelling dissent almost guarantees that the High Court will be asked to re-examine this case.

This massive dissent is expected to become a guide for any special­ leave application. Even if special leave is refused by the High Court, Weinberg’s rejection of much of the prosecution’s case is set to ensure the community’s deep divisions over this cleric are unlikely to be healed.

Legal academic Mirko Bagaric said he had been surprised that the two judges who formed the majority had not followed Weinberg, ­because the dissenting judge was “clearly the brightest bloke on the Victorian Court of Appeal”.

Bagaric, a professor at Swinburne University, said that Weinberg was a “powerhouse” on criminal matters and more experienced in this area than the two judges who formed the majority, chief judge Anne Ferguson and Court of Appeal president Chris Maxwell.

Weinberg would have acquitted Pell because he believed the jury verdict convicting him of historical­ child sex abuse was unreasonab­le and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.

.....

While Ferguson and Maxwell accepted the complainant’s evidenc­e, Weinberg wrote that Pell’s counsel, Bret Walker SC, had been justified in submitting that the complainant “did, at times embellish aspects of his account”.

“On occasion he seemed ­almost to ‘clutch at straws’ in an attemp­t to minimise, or overcome, the obvious inconsistencies betwee­n what he had said on ear­lier occasions and what the object­ive evidence clearly showed,” Weinberg wrote.

Yesterday’s ruling comes at a time when a growing number of decisions by the Victorian Court of Appeal have been overturned by the High Court.

[aposiopetic]

Yesterday’s ruling comes at a time when a growing number of decisions by the Victorian Court of Appeal have been overturned by the High Court.

Are they like our Ninth Circus here in the U.S., then?

[naturalman1975]

To some extent, yes. Victoria is probably the most inherently left wing state in Australia, and that has an impact on a lot of things - our state level courts are often more ‘activist’ than those in other parts of the country. We also have a kind of state level ‘Bill of Rights’ that the courts consider that was a product of a socialist government in the early 2000s that has an impact here.

[aposiopetic]

Thank you for that explanation.

I did not get across The Australian's paywall.

However, for those interested, here is the text of the opinion ("judgment"): http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2019/186.html.

[Gay State Conservative]

Christians have suffered horrible injustices since the time of Christ Himself. If the Cardinal is,in fact,innocent then he can surely be added to that long,long list.

OTOH,if,by chance,the Cardinal's guilty then he must expect to be required to "render unto Caesar".

[Gay State Conservative]

It appears that the Sydney Morning Herald doesn't have a pay wall.They have a writeup on the decision.

Cardinal Pell Decision

[livius]

Thanks, I’ve been wondering about Victoria and its political leanings. I don’t know anything about Australia (except that lots of Aussies live in my state, Florida!).