Cardinal George Pell: High Court quashes abuse convictions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greenfields
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Iā€™m just a wee bit faster than you! šŸ˜‰
40.png
Cardinal Pell exonerated! Catholic News
Thanks be to God!
 
In reality, we donā€™t know the guilt or innocence of the Cardinal. But, I am relieved that the highest court has affirmed that the credible testimony of a single complainant cannot itself constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
 
The level of hatred from comments by those on social media commenting on 7 news channel is horrifying. What is it with people who lack the professional judicial understanding and full details think they themselves know more than Judges. They only expose their own bitter bias
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
But, I am relieved that the highest court has affirmed that the credible testimony of a single complainant cannot itself constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
To say nothing of the uncredible testimony of the witness.
 
Last edited:
What will happen to the person who wrongly accused Cardinal Pell?
 
Last edited:
The case against him was not going to hold water to begin with. I know here in the United States, we have the presumption of innocence, and I checked, Australia has it too, and that presumption of innocence just was not there.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
The case against him was not going to hold water to begin with. I know here in the United States, we have the presumption of innocence, and I checked, Australia has it too, and that presumption of innocence just was not there.
Click to expand...
Thatā€™s the nub of it.

After the first trial, where he was convicted by a jury, some commentators remarked that the defence had made a tactical mistake in their presentation of the ā€œalibiā€ evidence (of Pellā€™s movements after Mass) in that they had given the impressions that they were trying to ā€œproveā€ his innocence, and may have reversed the burden of proof in the jurorsā€™ minds.

The decision of the High Court, (a unanimous decision of seven judges), was that ā€œreasonable doubtā€, due to the defenceā€™s evidence, should have led the jury to aquitt.

Thanks be to God for the release of an innocent man, and the success of our legal system.

This means we are all safer from wrongful conviction, but unfortunately it wonā€™t be seen that way by many Australians.

From the High Courtā€™s decision:
The unchallenged evidence of the opportunity witnesses was inconsistent with the complainantā€™s account, and described: (i) the applicantā€™s practice of greeting congregants on or near the Cathedral steps after Sunday solemn Mass; (ii) the established and historical Catholic church practice that required that the applicant, as an archbishop, always be accompanied when robed in the Cathedral; and (iii) the continuous traffic in and out of the priestsā€™ sacristy for ten to 15 minutes after the conclusion of the procession that ended Sunday solemn Mass.

The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainantā€™s evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicantā€™s guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents.

With respect to each of the applicantā€™s convictions, there was, consistently with the words the Court used in Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 at 444 and M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494, ā€œa significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proofā€.
Click to expand...
 
Itā€™s a shame it took until the High Court to squash it because that demonstrates a high level of vigilantism operating at the mid and lower levels.
 
Last edited:
Paddy1989 said:
What will happen to the person who wrongly accused Cardinal Pell?
Click to expand...
Probably nothing, unless it can be demonstrated that he made his accusations in bad faith or with malicious intent and in full knowledge that he was not telling the truth.

Not every complainant who gives evidence in a criminal case gets their allegations to stick to the extent that the accused is found guilty - this can be so for lots of reasons apart from them maliciously and deliberately lying under oath. Are you suggesting that all such should have something ā€œhappenā€ to them for some reason?
 
Last edited:
If he lied in this matter and wants to be reconciled with God through confession the Code of Canon Law has a special provision in this type of case.

Can. 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3G.HTM
 
LilyM said:
40.png
Paddy1989:
What will happen to the person who wrongly accused Cardinal Pell?
Click to expand...
Probably nothing, unless it can be demonstrated that he made his accusations in bad faith or with malicious intent and in full knowledge that he was not telling the truth.

Not every complainant who gives evidence in a criminal case gets their allegations to stick to the extent that the accused is found guilty - this can be so for lots of reasons apart from them maliciously and deliberately lying under oath. Are you suggesting that all such should have something ā€œhappenā€ to them for some reason?
Click to expand...
Iā€™m not suggesting anything? I asking since an accusation was made will this be followed up on further?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top