• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cardinal George Pell released on appeal.

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Haven't studied the story enough to offer an opinion yet, but this doesn't appear based on new information, or on the jury not following instruction.

Strangely it seems that the high court case suggested the jury simply got it wrong...

Please note, this website is reputable, but generally sits centre-left in case that matters. Some other centre right options I was going to put up sit behind paywalls.

Courts are reluctant to overturn jury verdicts — so why did Pell's appeal succeed?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Reminds me of a case Indiana CPS lost, a case that should have been very easy because dad was observed choking. However, due to sneaky lawyer tricks, DCS lost in court because they failed to prove choking is detrimental to one's health.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
I was reading about this earlier today and from what I understand the court found that there was a serious basis for reasonable doubt ignored by the jury. Finding a complainant credible is not enough to convict someone.

It's a terrible situation either way. Either a sex offender goes free, or an innocent man goes to jail for the crime of being too juicy of a scalp. I think the second possibility is worse.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Haven't studied the story enough to offer an opinion yet, but this doesn't appear based on new information, or on the jury not following instruction.

Strangely it seems that the high court case suggested the jury simply got it wrong...

Please note, this website is reputable, but generally sits centre-left in case that matters. Some other centre right options I was going to put up sit behind paywalls.

Courts are reluctant to overturn jury verdicts — so why did Pell's appeal succeed?
The fact of Pell's sentence being quashed is not a matter of doubt. The article seems to be a dispassionate consideration of the role Appeal courts can have in overturning jury verdicts.

One point he does not seem to mention, unless I've missed it, is that this is an overturning of a conviction in favour of an acquittal. A court of appeal, importantly, cannot overturn a jury's not guilty verdict. It would be that that would lead to a risk of an oppressive state.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
I think in Australia an appeals court can overturn a not guilty verdict.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The fact of Pell's sentence being quashed is not a matter of doubt. The article seems to be a dispassionate consideration of the role Appeal courts can have in overturning jury verdicts.

One point he does not seem to mention, unless I've missed it, is that this is an overturning of a conviction in favour of an acquittal. A court of appeal, importantly, cannot overturn a jury's not guilty verdict. It would be that that would lead to a risk of an oppressive state.

Sorry, I'm missing the point of your post.
I was just quickly linking to a credible article, but...RF being what it is...was acknowledging that the article is from a credible centre left source. I assume people are generally unfamiliar with Australian media.

As for the verdict, it can be overturned if the appeal finds that the jury decision cannot be supported by the evidence. That's what has happened here. In very simplistic terms the timelines suggested by the witnesses didn't add up with the activities of the day. The court has suggested the witness was credibly recounting events to the best of their memory, but that their memory appeared to be at odds with other information.

I'm a little loath to say too much yet, since I haven't read enough on the appeal.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Sorry, I'm missing the point of your post.
I was just quickly linking to a credible article, but...RF being what it is...was acknowledging that the article is from a credible centre left source. I assume people are generally unfamiliar with Australian media.

As for the verdict, it can be overturned if the appeal finds that the jury decision cannot be supported by the evidence. That's what has happened here. In very simplistic terms the timelines suggested by the witnesses didn't add up with the activities of the day. The court has suggested the witness was credibly recounting events to the best of their memory, but that their memory appeared to be at odds with other information.

I'm a little loath to say too much yet, since I haven't read enough on the appeal.
I was trying to address:

1) your comment that you find it strange the appeal succeeded on the grounds the jury got it wrong and
2) your remark about the reliability or otherwise of the source.

But perhaps I didn't do it very well.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I think in Australia an appeals court can overturn a not guilty verdict.
I would find that very odd indeed. Are you sure about that, and can you provide any examples?

I can just about imagine an appeal court could order a retrial after an acquittal, in exceptional circumstances. But I can see no way under English law (on which Australian law is largely modelled) that a panel of judges could overturn a jury's acquittal and replace it with a guilty verdict.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Australia has no law against double jeopardy
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I would find that very odd indeed. Are you sure about that, and can you provide any examples?

I can just about imagine an appeal court could order a retrial after an acquittal, in exceptional circumstances. But I can see no way under English law (on which Australian law is largely modelled) that a panel of judges could overturn a jury's acquittal and replace it with a guilty verdict.

My understanding is that they can only appeal severity of sentence, unless they follow some sort of exceptional process. Basically they need to apply to be able to appeal where a citizen was found not guilty.

This is very rare, and would probably require procedural or jurisdiction errors.

That's based on Victorian law (where I live, and where Pell was trialled).

However, I'm only about 90% sure I'm correct.
One thing I am sure about I'd that the Department of Public Prosecutions doesn't appeal not guilty verdicts without requiring permission to do so, whereas appealing sentence severity is in their standard brief.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I was trying to address:

1) your comment that you find it strange the appeal succeeded on the grounds the jury got it wrong and
2) your remark about the reliability or otherwise of the source.

But perhaps I didn't do it very well.

Oh, well, I wasn't trying to judge your post, so sorry if it sounded that way. I saw the story on the tv, grabbed a news story I thought people would be able to access, and quickly threw threw up the OP on my phone.

It's unusual for an appeal to succeed without either new evidence or procedural problems (inadmissible evidence or juries not following instruction, etc).

And the ABC is a credible news source. I was going to roll with The Australian, but paywall issues prevented that. I probably just confused things by mentioning source credibility at all, but media bias on a major religious figure being acquitted could be a real consideration.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Australia has no law against double jeopardy
Ah but that's different. That would allow for an appeal court to call for a retrial after an acquittal, which I mentioned in my earlier post. The retrial would involve a new jury.

What I'm saying can never happen is that an acquittal is directly overturned by the Court of Appeal and replaced with a guilty verdict.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Haven't studied the story enough to offer an opinion yet, but this doesn't appear based on new information, or on the jury not following instruction.

Strangely it seems that the high court case suggested the jury simply got it wrong...

Please note, this website is reputable, but generally sits centre-left in case that matters. Some other centre right options I was going to put up sit behind paywalls.

Courts are reluctant to overturn jury verdicts — so why did Pell's appeal succeed?
There is huge backlash happening on this at the moment. I'm pretty disenchanted with the Australian legal system, so I don't really want to venture an opinion either way.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
This is a mighty triumph for George Pell. Now prepare for a storm of rage from the cardinal's supporters | David Marr

The judges do not accuse the young man of being a liar or a fantasist. They do not find his evidence contained discrepancies or displayed inadequacies “of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt”. But they have done what the jury and the Victorian court of appeal did not do: they have trusted absolutely the evidence of Pell’s master of ceremonies Monsignor Charles Portelli. This church official said he was with the archbishop at all times that morning, first on the steps of the cathedral farewelling the faithful and then in the sacristy helping him unrobe. The high court observed that Portelli’s evidence of having an actual recall of being with Pell on the steps was never challenged by the prosecution. Believe Portelli here and it is hard to believe the man who accuses Pell of rape. The court did what the prosecution argued all the way should not be done: it compounded all the improbabilities to establish doubt. Rather than adding they multiplied the improbabilities. So the judges concluded that even though they found the young man’s accusations “credible and reliable” the jury “acting rationally” should have “entertained a doubt” as to Pell’s guilt and not put those doubts aside.

Not as if Portelli would be biased or mistaken here is it.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
I have my doubts about the appeal courts impartiality!!
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
This is a mighty triumph for George Pell. Now prepare for a storm of rage from the cardinal's supporters | David Marr

The judges do not accuse the young man of being a liar or a fantasist. They do not find his evidence contained discrepancies or displayed inadequacies “of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt”. But they have done what the jury and the Victorian court of appeal did not do: they have trusted absolutely the evidence of Pell’s master of ceremonies Monsignor Charles Portelli. This church official said he was with the archbishop at all times that morning, first on the steps of the cathedral farewelling the faithful and then in the sacristy helping him unrobe. The high court observed that Portelli’s evidence of having an actual recall of being with Pell on the steps was never challenged by the prosecution. Believe Portelli here and it is hard to believe the man who accuses Pell of rape. The court did what the prosecution argued all the way should not be done: it compounded all the improbabilities to establish doubt. Rather than adding they multiplied the improbabilities. So the judges concluded that even though they found the young man’s accusations “credible and reliable” the jury “acting rationally” should have “entertained a doubt” as to Pell’s guilt and not put those doubts aside.

Not as if Portelli would be biased or mistaken here is it.
The court seems to have said it was perverse of the jury not to have entertained "reasonable doubt".
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
it was perverse of the appeals court not to consider what a pervert Pell was!!
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
it was perverse of the appeals court not to consider what a pervert Pell was!!
Allegedly.

I have to say that every time I have read a court judgement in a contentious case like this, I have found the argument of the judges to be hard to fault. Most of the time, those that disagree are going off what the man in the pub thinks, having read a few newspaper headlines and not much more. Deciding things that way is called mob rule, and the point of a judicial system is to do better than that.
 
Top