George Pell, Lindy Chamberlain: Injustices like these must not be allowed to happen again

The Australian ^ | 12th January 2023 | Chris Merritt

[naturalman1975]

George Pell, an innocent man, spent 405 days in prison after two great institutions failed to discharge their responsibilities in a proper manner: the justice system and the media.

.....

The clearest lesson from the Pell affair is the need to bolster the presumption of innocence. This is the golden thread that is supposed to run through the justice system, protecting us from the kind of hysteria that almost destroyed the cardinal.

.....

In the Pell case, many of those in public life – and that includes the media – forgot that they had an interest in upholding the presumption of innocence. By standing back and allowing the courts to do their work, they could have avoided looking like fools once the High Court had ruled.

Instead, significant parts of the media – particularly the ABC – proved they were not immune from the anti-Pell frenzy that swept through parts of society. They overlooked the distinction between an accusation and a proven fact.

.....

The Pell affair, just like the Dreyfus affair in France, will forever taint this country’s reputation, and leave a doubt about whether we are really the land of the fair go.

There can be little doubt that Dreyfus, a Jewish army officer, was persecuted because of his religion. That happened on the other side of the planet. But more than a century later, the Pell case shows that little has changed.

The only skerrick of honour from this affair was salvaged by the great dissenting judgment of Mark Weinberg, who refused to go along with the rest of the Victorian Court of Appeal in upholding the flawed jury verdict.

Weinberg’s dissent, which provided the framework for the cardinal’s successful appeal to the High Court, demolished the prosecution’s case.

[jonrick46]

This is an example of lousy journalism. At the beginning of the article, one should know what George Pell was charged with. I quit reading this waste of time.

[naturalman1975]

The article was written for an Australian audience.

The trial of George Pell was Australia's trial of the century.

So it probably didn't need to be restated for the audience.

This story also appears as one story in a newspaper where most of the front cover today is George Pell, so even if they did need to be informed, the person writing this article in its original context could probably safely assume people knew the details.

I'm aware that on Freerepublic, which is certainly not an Australian specific site, not everybody is going to be aware. But a very large number of people are here, given that the case involved the persecution of a prominent conservative by the leftist establishment. So, I thought I'd share it.

I also had to edit the article down a bit to make it fit the 300 word limit.

[Fiji Hill]

Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall.

[naturalman1975]

I am aware. Unfortunately, nearly all quality Australian journalism is now - the left wing stuff is basically the only stuff that isn’t.

So I shared as much of this as I could.

[Gay State Conservative]

Can’t speak for Australia but here in the US “progressives” don’t even *try* to hide their contempt for the Catholic Church.

[Oystir]

To all on FR, please read Cardinal Pell’s Prison Journal (3 volumes) It truly shows a life well lived.

[Gay State Conservative]

Yes,it's great to hear that there are Aussies,Canadians,Brits and others who are fighting the good fight. As for Australian journalism I've seen more than a few pieces from Skynews Australia that represent better coverage of what's going on here in the US than you'll see on any of our outlets.

And the same is often true with the Daily Mail in Britain.

[jonrick46]

You are not at fault. The news account of the persecution of George Pell by the Australian government was meant for the back page, where few would read. It is a red flag to how far into the totalitarian mode Australia has become. It is a warning to how far it could go in America.

Pell’s initial conviction for sexual abuse, in February 2019, has the earmarks of a political hit job. He did not live long after his conviction was overturned, in 2020, by the Australian Supreme Court.

[Gay State Conservative]

I could be wrong but it wasn’t so much the *national* government that had the Cardinal in its cross hairs...it was the State of Victoria.

[naturalman1975]

I could be wrong but it wasn’t so much the *national* government that had the Cardinal in its cross hairs...it was the State of Victoria.

Yes. It was the Victoria Police encouraged by the Victorian government, and Victorian courts convicted Pell and denied his first appeal.

Once it reached the national level, High Court, he was unanimously acquitted.

(Note - I don't blame the Judge in his original trial - I think he did his best, and he was bound by convention to accept the jury verdict - in his summing up after that verdict, he stated himself that there had been a witch hunt, and I think he expected the first appeal to succeed).

Even now - the new Labor Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has at national level, been very clear to make a balanced statement about Pell's death that respects the High Court vedict. It wasn't effusive in its praise, but it avoided treating the Cardinal as evil incarnate.

While the Labor Premier of Victoria, Dan Andrews, has, once again, come out with his "We believe the victims" piece.

[Verginius Rufus]

There was a fair amount of discussion of this case on FR several years ago. One of the supposed victims denied being abused (but had died before the trial) and the other one was not credible...the allegations were preposterous on their face. If I remember correctly, the Vatican did nothing to help the cardinal.

[Gay State Conservative]

Unless I'm mistaken judges in the US have the power to declare a criminal defendant "not guilty" at any time after the prosecution has presented its case...even after a jury has returned a "guilty" verdict. In fact I've heard of a case somewhere here where that very thing happened...after a guilty verdict.

Do Australian judges have the same authority?

[naturalman1975]

Do Australian judges have the same authority?

Not after a verdict has been rendered. Before the verdict is given, in extreme cases where a judge believes a guilty verdict is totally unsustainable as a matter of law, the Judge can direct a 'Not Guilty' verdict but that is reserved for truly unusual situations - the only cases I know of have been when a police officer has admitted on the stand to fabricating the only evidence before the jury, or when a prosecutor has stood up and said that the prosecution has concluded the accused is innocent.

In a case where a Judge believes a verdict of not guilty is not sound, they should ensure the case is directed to the Court of Appeal, where senior judges (judges of the Court of Appeal in Victoria, are all state Supreme Court judges) will rule on whether the jury reached the correct verdict.

In the Pell case, the trial judge did not have to direct the case to the Court of Appeal because he was aware that the Defence were going to take that approach anyway. The Cout of Appeal did hear the case and while they found (2-1) the jury had not erred, this was the issue that went to the High Court on further appeal, and the High Court then did rule that the jury had erred.

In many cases, while this is all happening, a defendant will remain on bail. George Pell and his lawyers elected not to pursue bail (beyond him being initially bailed to complete some medical treatment) probably because they knew the appeal court processes tend to be faster if a person is in prison than if they are on bail - it's treated as a higher priority. I believe they were confident the High Court verdict would go their way - but lacked confidence in the state level courts - so wanted it to get to the High Court as quickly as possible. I suspect Cardinal Pell was more concerned with his verdict being overturned as quickly as possible, rather than whether he spent time in prison.