Skip to comments.How faith was lost on judgment day for a state legal system (Cardinal George Pell case)
Posted on 08/25/2019 4:38:14 AM PDT by naturalman1975
The 2-1 Victorian Court of Appeal dismissal of George Pells appeal against his sexual offences convictions may settle Pells guilt in the eyes of the law, but this contested judgment cannot constitute an enduring settlement or convincing argument in relation to Pells guilt.
It is an extraordinary judgment. The power, logic and suasion lies in the 200-page minority judgment by Mark Weinberg, a former commonwealth director of public prosecutions and the most experienced of the three judges in criminal law. Weinbergs dissent is long and closely reasoned. Weinberg has ensured that grave doubts about Pells guilt will not be dissipated by the 2-1 verdict against him.
Weinberg has undermined the assumptions of the prosecution case as accepted by Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Justice Chris Maxwell, president of the Court of Appeal. Given this minority judgment, Pells legal team is likely to take recourse to the High Court.
In upholding Pells appeal and in the arguments he made, Weinberg raises the implication an innocent man is being convicted and this, in turn, raises far wider questions. Can the public have faith in the criminal justice system of Victoria? The majority case, obviously, must be accepted. But a reading of the entire judgment suggests the majority case is flawed and less convincing than the minority.
The Pell trial has never been about the egregious crimes of the Catholic Church in relation to sexual abuse of children. It is about only one issue: whether Pell is a sexual predator. Yet these two elements seem difficult, almost impossible, to separate, and this tension seems embedded in the legal process and Court of Appeal decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.com.au ...
My position remains the same as it has been the whole time - I am not convinced George Pell is guilty, but more significantly, I do not believe he received a fair trial. It is difficult to convey to people outside Australia just how hated George Pell is among the left intelligentsia in this country - he has been their favourite bugbear for over two decades now. It would be difficult to see how he could receive a fair trial given the amount of vitriol and abuse that has been directed at him over the years, but the fact that the trials - there were two, because the first failed to reach a verdict, leading a retrial - were held in secret, and even, now the sole evidence given - the testimony of the alleged victim - is not allowed to be shown to the public.
George Pell is appealing to the High Court of Australia, which is his last chance to have this conviction overturned - it is by no means certain that they will even agree to hear the case.
The United States has the 2nd amendment for precisely the time when government becomes untrustworthy.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
It seems to be the same in Australia.
In most Western countries today Catholic clergy are the new "niggaz".
Thanks for posting.
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.