Will Pell be defrocked?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bradskii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No of course not. Years ago in my constitutional law class this was studied. This was after the overturned verdict. Very interesting.
 
Bradskii said:
I named him in a post a few months back and I think that was tecnically illegal as well (I’m an Australian).
Click to expand...
Presumably, Australia is a nation of laws. If the court did not serve you with the gag order, then you have no duty whatsoever to maintain confidentiality. You cannot be held accountable for a legal notice you were not served. (I am of course neither a lawyer, nor an Australian).
 
Pattylt, Please read what Emerald lady has written, I was the confused one.
 
Last edited:
LateranBasilica said:
Pattylt, there were two separate trials, one for an incident in a pool and another for an incident where the Cardinal has been found guilty of the choir boy incident. I believe he was also found guilty of the pool incident.

People appear to be confused about the issue of two separate trials for two separate incidents. Of the pool incident, one of the alleged victims died pre trial and thus, was not able to have his case heard.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, you are terribly confused and have everything wrong. The first trial was this same case being sentenced today. It was a mistrial due to hung jury which leaned 10 to 2 in favour of Pell. It was re-tried and this jury was unanimous to convict.

The case of Damian Dignan and Lyndon Monument who accused Pell of abusing them at the Ballarat Pool in the 70’s has never been to trial. It was dropped yesterday by the prosecution as having no reasonable expectation of conviction. That is why the suppression order was lifted.
 
Thankyou

Damien Dignan died so his alleged complaint would not have seen the light of day, had the case gone to court. His case was dropped after he died. That of Lyndon’s would have been ongoing. I would not be at all surprised if it resurfaces in some form later.
 
Last edited:
OJ??!!! Hey now, the glove didn’t fit!
(“If I Did It”)
 
Last edited:
So, I’m curious- I’m not Australian and I don’t have any experience with Australian jurisprudence. But a question for the Aussies here:

Hypothetically speaking, if Pell’s appeal is successful and his conviction is overturned, what would happen? Would he be free? Or would there be a new trial?
 
Huh. This is fascinating. You’ve been crowing this whole time in this thread about how the matter is entirely settled because Pell has been convicted in a court of law, and you’ve been casting aspersions on the motives of anyone who dares to espouse even the tiniest bit of skepticism, yet here you are doubting the acquittal of a person whose prior conviction was overturned… by a court of law.
 
Examine your logic or your proclivities. And perhaps also your conscience.
 
runningdude said:
40.png
Bradskii:
I named him in a post a few months back and I think that was tecnically illegal as well (I’m an Australian).
Click to expand...
Presumably, Australia is a nation of laws. If the court did not serve you with the gag order, then you have no duty whatsoever to maintain confidentiality. You cannot be held accountable for a legal notice you were not served. (I am of course neither a lawyer, nor an Australian).
Click to expand...
Nobody was personaly issued with a gag order. It was all encompassing. It included:

'‘any report of the whole or any part of these proceedings and any court documents associated with this proceeding.’

The injunction would apply to “all states and territories of Australia and on any website or other electronic or broadcast format accessible within Australia.”

That would include this site. I’m flying back to Australia in a couple of weeks. If you don’t get further posts from me then maybe I’ve been sent down for a couple of years…
 
Vonsalza said:
40.png
Greenfields:
We have our washed out versions of 'Catholic 'schools ,and our fair dinkim catholic schools .I wish I’d sent mine to the later.
Click to expand...
Could you explain the difference to a non-Aussie? I’m not familiar with the regional vernacular.

Is “fair dinkim” used like “legitimate” or “valid”?
Click to expand...
More like ‘genuine’ in this case. But it can be used for ‘no way!’, ‘really?’, ‘gimme a break!’, ‘it’s true I tell you’, ‘literally’, ‘truthfull’ etc.

It’s a very handy phrase. We never say ‘throw a shrimp on the barbie’ (they’re prawns down here), but almost everyone uses fair dinkum.
 
From the Guardian:

"The former prime minister John Howard was among those who provided character references for Pell as the cardinal’s legal team tried to argue for a lower-end sentence in Melbourne’s county court on Wednesday morning.

That claim was rejected by the chief judge, Peter Kidd, who said he saw Pell’s behaviour as “callous, brazen offending” and “shocking conduct”.

“He did have in his mind some sense of impunity. How else did he think he would get away with this? There was an element of force here … this is not anywhere near the lower end of offending.”

Richter’s renowned defence style was on full display, as he tried to argue with Kidd that there were “no aggravating circumstances” to one of Pell’s offences.

It was “no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating”, Richter said.

Kidd responded: “It must be clear to you by now I’m struggling with that submission. Looking at your points here – so what?”

Richter also tried to suggest that an incident in which Pell grabbed one of the boys by the genitals in an attack that lasted seconds was “fleeting” and not worthy of a jail sentence. Kidd disagreed.

“That wasn’t just a trifling sexual assault,” he said.

“Nothing is to be gained here by comparing different forms of sexual abuse of children. Of course I need to make a judgement of the overall gravity of this. But there is a limit to these kinds of comparisons.” "

It looks like they are arguing for a minimum sentence rather than asking the judge to call a mistrial. And the judge doesn’t seem to be in any doubt of Pell’s guilt. It’s not looking for Pell according to this report.
 
Last edited:
This was a sentencing hearing, there’s no opportunity to argue for a mistrial until the appeal
 
Flopfoot said:
This was a sentencing hearing, there’s no opportunity to argue for a mistrial until the appeal
Click to expand...
My bad. Although I thought the appeal was going to be heard today (Wednesday). It seems odd that you have have the sentence hearing before the appeal.

You would have to put forward an argument on day one that the crime wasn’t in the worst possible category, so please can he receive a light sentence, and then on day two argue that he shouldn’t have been convicted in the first place.
 
I really dont know what you are talking about. The dingo case? Pell is innocent because if that!? If that’s your point you got me. I guess he is innocent
 
In post #140 you made the assertion that jury’s can’t get it wrong. The Lindy Chamberlain case proves jury’s can get it wrong. That’s what I was referencing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top