TOPIC:

Boys club. One cloth looking after another cloth.

Howard and Abbott will be happy for their mate

Tiger of old wrote: Howard and Abbott will be happy for their mate

On this occasion they have been fully vindicated by the highest court in the land, good on them for going against the mob and sticking by a mate, takes guts to do that.

BC wrote: I guess there's some concerns as it now places doubt on trial by jury going forward when the HCA can overturn it even after the Court of Appeal found the jury decision reasonable notwithstanding it was a 2-1 ruling.

Big issues in the most corrupt legal system is Australia.

Currently a RC underway about the use of a Lawyer as an informant among other things.

Then you have the fact that Victoria stands alone as the only State were a person doesn't have the right to trial by Judge alone, that clearly has to change, as the Jury system just isn't robust enough to stand up to outside influence which is why most states don't allow them in high profile cases.

One also wonders wtf was going through the minds of 2 out of three of the Vic SC Judges to have got it so wrong whether or not there was interference , to be smashed 7 zip by the HCA is a massive smack down.. the two that messed it up where civil lawyers with little or no Criminal Law experience, Weinstein the one that got it right in the end is one of the most experienced Criminal Judges in Australia.

One of the Judges Maxwell also has questionable political links with the Andrews.

Pell is lucky he had the money to fight for justice the average Joe doesn't have those resources, how many other people are banged up for crimes they didnt commit? Theres a good case to make the HCA more affordable for all.

What concerns me Baz is that the HCA made a judgement on the evidence and not on the law itself or procedural fairness in determining the jury should have found there was reasonable doubt. It begs the question, why have lower courts at all if the HCA can determine if someone is guilty or not based on the evidence.

BC wrote: What concerns me Baz is that the HCA made a judgement on the evidence and not on the law itself or procedural fairness in determining the jury should have found there was reasonable doubt. It begs the question, why have lower courts at all if the HCA can determine if someone is guilty or not based on the evidence.

On the contrary, the HCA made a decison based on the Evidence, the whole of the Evidence which the lower courts failed to do, with the exception of Justice Weinsten.

Lower courts are always answerable to higher courts, as Button, Lindy Chamberlain and Andrew Mallard.

Not real nice spending time in jail for something you didn't do.

only the people involved know whether he did or didnt do it, you dont know that and neither do I or anyone on here.

Spot on MO. The court is not saying whether he did it or not...they're just ruling the jury should have found there was reasonable doubt as to his guilt based on the evidence.

Pell may still have some issues because now he is out of Jail his evidence to the Royal Commission into Child Abuse and the findings of that Commission can now be made public and once that happens it will indicate to what extent he knew about other child abusers in the Catholic church and as a bishop if he actually participated in cover ups to protect these abusers.

He’s got more coming his way anyway. Better enjoy his freedom while it lasts.