Breaking: Pell wins appeal

[catholic03]

This is the end I believe. The Vatican will do a separate canonical investigation. I’d imagine that either way, he won’t be sticking around in Australia.

I am so happy.

I assume Rome will find him innocent (no reason why they wouldn’t).

He’s been through so much.

God bless him.

 

[dochawk]

He has been acquitted of these particular charges,

That’s not clear from the articles I’ve found.

I’m going to put my two bits in as a lawyer, and then back out.

While I’m not familiar with he Australian system in particular, all of the Common Law countries are quite similar. In the US, this would vacate the conviction, but would not quit. However, given the lack of any other evidence, another trial would be unlikely, but not barred by law. In normal cases, retrials are common after vacated acquittals.

I’ll also note that neither “not guilty”, any other acquittal, and vacating a conviction do not “exonerate” the defendant. Rather, they acknowledge that guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. As an example, the OJ jury believed he did it, but that the proof didn’t meet this standard.

(note that Scotland is apparently an exception, with a third available verdict of “Innocent” available in some [all?] cases.)

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

Am I misunderstanding this?
High Court of Australia:

Today, the High Court granted special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria and unanimously allowed the appeal. The High Court found that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place.

https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf

 

[Lion_IRC]

I’ll also note that neither “not guilty”, any other acquittal, and vacating a conviction do not “exonerate” the defendant. Rather, they acknowledge that guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt

How can one go from a pre-trial presumption of innocence, to a post-acquittal status of;
…might have done it
???

 

[LilyM]

catholic03:

Is this the end, or is there a chance that His Eminence will have to endure another trial?

He has been acquitted of these particular charges, so he cannot be retried for them. That doesn’t mean he’s safe from other charges in the future. If I were the cardinal I’d be getting out of Australia as fast as possible.

Can a moderator please merge our 3-4 threads on this topic?

Nor would he be immune from civil suit from the alleged victim - which may even be successful, as was the civil suit against OJ Simpson by the families of his alleged victims.

 

[CTBcin]

Nor would he be immune from civil suit from the alleged victim - which may even be successful, as was the civil suit against OJ Simpson by the families of his alleged victims.

Yeah, this is what I thought of as well.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

note that Scotland is apparently an exception, with a third available verdict of “Innocent” available in some [all?] cases.

I’m not sure that that is correct. As I understand it, there are three possible verdicts in Scotland: guilty, not guilty, and not proven.

 

[dochawk]

and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place.

That makes a difference; that is one that I hadn’t found.

The more common order overturning a conviction based on law is a legal mistake: evidence that shouldn’t have been admitted, an incorrect jury instruction, etc.

The trial court sends up both legal findings (primarily judicial rulings) and factual findings (often just guilty/not guilty, but sometimes more detailed).

Most appeals depend on the former, and for good reason: the appellate court reviews legal findings “de novo”, considering the issue entirely on its own, with no regard to the finding of any lower court. On factual issues, however, an appellate court strongly defers to the lower court. The standard is roughly whether any reasonable person could have reached that conclusion from that evidence, with that evidence taken most strongly in the prevailing party’s favor. This standard is rarely met.

However, noting the direction of a verdict of acquittal seems to suggest that that is exactly what happened.

That is, the highest court found that no reasonable person would have found, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the crime was committed by the defendant, from the evidence presented.

So there can be no retrial under that circumstances (at least under american rules; some other country’s have different standards on retrial, and don’t take double jeopardy as far as the US constitution)>

Oh, wow. The opinion is only a page and a half, and you’re quoting the first paragraph!

So, yes, the top court ruled that the jury was wrong, and is directing a different act int its place.

How can one go from a pre-trial presumption of innocence, to a post-acquittal status of;
…might have done it
???

The presumption of “innocence” is more a presumption of “not guilty”.

I’m not sure that that is correct. As I understand it, there are three possible verdicts in Scotland: guilty, not guilty, and not proven.

I’m dealing with second- and third-hand knowledge, but “not proven” and “not guilty” would be the same thing in the US and “typical” Common Law.

 

[jack63]

Imagine the courage to go back to Australia to face this. Cardinal Pell was treated very unfairly in the lower court.

I’m glad he was able to walk free in a unanimous ruling 7 to 0. Those crimes were never proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This type of injustice by the lower court does make you rethink things…

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion_IRC:

How can one go from a pre-trial presumption of innocence, to a post-acquittal status of;

…might have done it
???

The presumption of “innocence” is more a presumption of “not guilty”.

That’s taking epistemic humility one step too far.

We dont walk around with an open minded attitude that everyone might equally be guilty or not guilty.

Neither do we place an equal burden of proof/persuasion when it comes to proving/disproving accusations of guilt. Why is that? It’s because sending an innocent person to jail is orders of magnitude worse than letting a guilty person go free.

 

[porthos11]

catholic03:

Is this the end, or is there a chance that His Eminence will have to endure another trial?

He has been acquitted of these particular charges, so he cannot be retried for them. That doesn’t mean he’s safe from other charges in the future. If I were the cardinal I’d be getting out of Australia as fast as possible.

Can a moderator please merge our 3-4 threads on this topic?

There’s now talk of the accusers launching civil suits.

The Cardinal is probably too decent of a guy to do this, but if I were his legal team, I would advise him to get ahead of that and sue them first, for both the damage to his good name and for the year he lost in prison. If he wins such a pre-emptive suit, it should send a strong message that you cannot just accuse an innocent man and get away unscathed.

As for the optics, that’s another concern entirely. The media will undoubtedly spin such an action as a further “insult” or “blow” against the abuse victims, yadda yadda.

 

[CTBcin]

As for the optics, that’s another concern entirely. The media will undoubtedly spin such an action as a further “insult” or “blow” against the abuse victims, yadda yadda.

Yeah, I’ve already seen some of the secular media’s reactions, and they certainly have an agenda. It seems that most people still presume he’s guilty.

 

[porthos11]

porthos11:

As for the optics, that’s another concern entirely. The media will undoubtedly spin such an action as a further “insult” or “blow” against the abuse victims, yadda yadda.

Yeah, I’ve already seen some of the secular media’s reactions, and they certainly have an agenda. It seems that most people still presume he’s guilty.

These people are so two faced. These are the same people who said, after the initial conviction:

“He IS a pedophile. He has been duly convicted in a court of law.”

and now,

“He’s been acquitted by the highest court of law, but no matter, he’s guilty anyway. This is such a shock and insult to all victime of abuse!”

Where the hell is the integrity in these people?

 

[tafan2]

I am interested in hearing from a couple if forum members who were very sure he was guilty, that it was a moral crime to question the jury. IIRC, that claim came from @hoosier-daddy.

 

[dochawk]

That’s taking epistemic humility one step too far.

Uh, no.

It’s a fundamental principle of the eight centuries or so of the Common Law that is the basis of the law of every English speaking country.

The presumption of innocence is a criminal law concept, not a concept of the general law, nor a general social concept.

In the criminal law, the principle you hunt at, that it is far better that many guilty be set free than a single innocent man be punished, is a statement of this ancient principle that dates to Johan Adam’s closing arguments when defending the britishsoldiers after the Boston Massacre.

 

[mjm076]

Joseph Sciambra unfortunately seems to agree with some Facebook users that Cardinal Pell should still be in jail due to allegedly covering up abuse

I don’t think this Cardinal Pell affair is over!

 

[Emeraldlady]

I am interested in hearing from a couple if forum members who were very sure he was guilty, that it was a moral crime to question the jury. IIRC, that claim came from @hoosier-daddy.

That poster seems to be suspended.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yeah, I’ve already seen some of the secular media’s reactions, and they certainly have an agenda. It seems that most people still presume he’s guilty.

This is the general public’s current reaction to almost any allegation of sexual abuse, unless the accused person is so popular that it gets swept under the rug. I won’t name names as to who is “wildly popular” because the post will likely get flagged/ edited/ deleted, but I’m sure we can all remember a couple of big celebrity sports stars, entertainers, and major politicians whose alleged transgressions, which in some cases they even admitted to or there was a wealth of very credible evidence that they did, were just put aside.

I see this public reaction partly as a backlash against the years when many victims were not believed if they chose to report. In addition, when the accused person is religious, conservative, or pro-life, then people will rush to believe anything bad about them because they just want to confirm their own bias that religious, conservative or pro-life people are vile hypocrites.

I further see the legal process as the last bastion of sensible logic against this sort of “mob rules” mentality.

 

[tafan2]

I did not realize that.

 

[Peebo]

I was living in Australia back in 1980 when the Lindy Chamberlain case was news…she was tried…judged and convicted by the Australian media AND the Australian public and the courts…and jailed…years later her conviction was overturned as the whole case was bungled from start to finish…she had to leave Australia because of the hatred against her…nothing seems to have changed…I can’t imagine Cardinal Pell staying there…he’ll always be guilty in the eyes of the media and much of the public