Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse

Jump to new
macca said:
I am saying the legal impact of this current case is very important, it has been shown to be a weak case with terrible implications if established as a precedent.
Click to expand...
First, as I said previously, sexual abuse cases often involve the word of the victim against that of the alleged perpetrator, without other collaborative evidence. Neither Police nor Prosecutors are keen to bring weak cases to the courts so significant efforts are made to ensure cases do not waste everyone's time.
Second, it seemed the defence team - led by one of the highest profile QCs in the State - was unable to find holes in the complainant's testimony that would lead a jury to doubt.
Third, the unanimous jury finding was appealed and found safe.
These are not the characteristics of a weak case.

Quite separately Pell was to be the subject of a civil case that later did not proceed.

A hallmark of successful convictions to date has been multiple victim statements against alleged perpetrators. Pell fits that mould, but was only tried on events alleged at one venue.

The High Court's precedent in quashing Pell's conviction is legally sound in that in such cases there is always a chance the crime never occurred. However, an implication here is that we have thrown out bath; the bath being a jury system.

Victims of sexual abuse can no longer have confidence that perpetrators will remain incarcerated. Perpetrators will be emboldened.
 
cynic said:
Not really!

It is merely another work of fiction by someone who is either unwilling, or unable, to comprehend and entertain the actual facts of the High Court ruling.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04...t-of-australia-full-judgment-summary/12128468
Click to expand...

In your article

"The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant'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 applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents."
 
rederob said:
First, as I said previously, sexual abuse cases often involve the word of the victim against that of the alleged perpetrator, without other collaborative evidence. Neither Police nor Prosecutors are keen to bring weak cases to the courts so significant efforts are made to ensure cases do not waste everyone's time.
Second, it seemed the defence team - led by one of the highest profile QCs in the State - was unable to find holes in the complainant's testimony that would lead a jury to doubt.
Third, the unanimous jury finding was appealed and found safe.
These are not the characteristics of a weak case.

Quite separately Pell was to be the subject of a civil case that later did not proceed.

A hallmark of successful convictions to date has been multiple victim statements against alleged perpetrators. Pell fits that mould, but was only tried on events alleged at one venue.

The High Court's precedent in quashing Pell's conviction is legally sound in that in such cases there is always a chance the crime never occurred. However, an implication here is that we have thrown out bath; the bath being a jury system.

Victims of sexual abuse can no longer have confidence that perpetrators will remain incarcerated. Perpetrators will be emboldened.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you have said. A lot of rapists have been acquitted due to lack of evidence too.

The point is what principles do we most value ? That the prosecution must prove its case, given that in some cases it can't do so and a guilty person walks free ? I think that is preferable to conviction by allegation which would lead to travesties of justice in the other direction.
 
IFocus said:
In your article

"The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant'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 applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents."
Click to expand...
Did you fail to notice the last sentence (of the linked article reporting the summary of that High Court ruling), which ended with the following quote:

"a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof".
 
cynic said:
Did you fail to notice the last sentence (of the linked article reporting the summary of that High Court ruling), which ended with the following quote:

"a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof".
Click to expand...
Nowhere is there stated in law what a requisite standard of proof would actually be, so it is mere opinion.
Based on the complainant's testimony, and the cross examination of some 50 witnesses, there is a significant possibility that a guilty man has been set free.
A reason we have a jury system, and an appeals court, is to test the evidence, and the veracity of the judgement.
Nobody is suggesting it is perfect.
 
rederob said:
Nowhere is there stated in law what a requisite standard of proof would actually be, so it is mere opinion.
Based on the complainant's testimony, and the cross examination of some 50 witnesses, there is a significant possibility that a guilty man has been set free.
A reason we have a jury system, and an appeals court, is to test the evidence, and the veracity of the judgement.
Nobody is suggesting it is perfect.
Click to expand...
What is it, exactly, that you are trying to explain here?

Are you suggesting that one should imprison anyone, tried for a serious crime, because there is a possibility that they might be guilty?

And, if so, is that assessment of the possibility of guilt, not also founded upon one's opinion/s of what constitutes evidence and/or proof of the existence of the possibility of guilt?

Do you understand the important role that, the presumption of innocence, until guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, plays in protecting all members of the Australian populace?
 
You can be judged by your peers and you can be judged by your real peers
Money permitting
 
Twice now in the last 15 months, Australia's highest court has called out serious problems in Victoria's legal system.
 
cynic said:
What is it, exactly, that you are trying to explain here?

Are you suggesting that one should imprison anyone, tried for a serious crime, because there is a possibility that they might be guilty?

And, if so, is that assessment of the possibility of guilt, not also founded upon one's opinion/s of what constitutes evidence and/or proof of the existence of the possibility of guilt?

Do you understand the important role that, the presumption of innocence, until guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, plays in protecting all members of the Australian populace?
Click to expand...

That's not what is being said trying to put words into people mouths is not helpful..

First lets be clear

The high court's decision is final as it should be.

However its important to understand the decision and as a result the process.
Note the high court did not clear Pell of guilt as much as it did not find him guilty.

It did not find a problem with the process or procedures of the case as used to be for case or reason for appeals before case "M"

Also note it did not question the evidence of the witness.

It has how ever overruled a jury's decision of guilt which used to be but no longer sacrosanct this is important.

Nothing you have said is relevant.
 
IFocus said:
That's not what is being said...
Click to expand...
Why are you replying to questions directed to another? Don't you have confidence in rederob's capacity to answer these for himself?
...trying to put words into people mouths is not helpful....
Click to expand...
Then why are you doing that?!
...Nothing you have said is relevant.
Click to expand...
Well what would you expect when attempting to furnish answers, to questions, that were never intended for you in the first place?
 
Any head of an institution that knowingly moved predatory paedophiles from one precinct to another within the organisation of which they had control to continue their obscene activities, because this was much better than embarrassing the Church. And then persecuted the damaged individuals that were cursed by those actions; AS PELL DID... Is, in any moral humans perspective a vile putrid (unchristian) criminal. And will be known by history as such...
Say what you like as to what the 'Law' now has to say About a twice convicted child abuser, trail and appeal.... simple fact is ...The man is filth.
hat's off of course to his efforts in protecting the Church's gold.

P.S you carn't help them Focus... This evil organisation holds the stiletto of fear to their eyeball as infants and from there they are lost to reason.
...god help them.
 
cynic said:
Do you understand the important role that, the presumption of innocence, until guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, plays in protecting all members of the Australian populace?
Click to expand...
If you understood the justice system you would know that based on all the evidence presented (ie some 50 witnesses), and tested by respective parties, the jury was in no doubt.
That point has been made many times above.
 
rederob said:
If you understood the justice system you would know that based on all the evidence presented (ie some 50 witnesses), and tested by respective parties, the jury was in no doubt.
That point has been made many times above.
Click to expand...
You seem to have very conveniently overlooked the first trial which resulted in a hung jury!

But as the saying goes "if at first you do not succeed, try and try again!"
 
All abuse, wherever it is found, is disgraceful and must be opposed.

Innocent until proven guilty
That is the basis of our justice system.

The decision was 7-0.

With this case now and lawyer X

Police informants in Victorias case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Gobbo

Those are the two in Victoria, ifocus.
 
Tink said:
Innocent until proven guilty
That is the basis of our justice system.
Click to expand...
He was found "guilty."
The High Court found the appellant court erred on a technical matter.
The High Court was not judging the evidence leading to the jury conviction.
You seem to be confusing a number of issues.
 
cynic said:
Not really!

It is merely another work of fiction by someone who is either unwilling, or unable, to comprehend and entertain the actual facts of the High Court ruling.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04...t-of-australia-full-judgment-summary/12128468
Click to expand...
"...
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.
..."
 
Top