OK, now - having read the full judgement (you can download it from here), I have changed my mind. I was wrong. The verdict clearly states (paragraph 7) that one of the grounds of the appeal to the High Court was that, contrary to the jury's decision, there remained reasonable doubt that the offences occurred. Equally clearly, the bench agreed unanimously that this is so (paragraph 127) before ordering that Pell's convictions be quashed in paragraph 129.Hermit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:00 amThe High Court did not even consider the jury decision as such. Special leave to appeal to the highest court in Australia is rarely granted, and when it is granted the verdict is almost never in question. In this case the appeal was on the grounds of an error in the administration of justice. The bench did not consider the issue of guilty or not guilty. It agreed that there was indeed an error in the administration of justice. In other words, Cardinal George Pell was let off the hook on a legal technicality.
How George Pell won in the High Court on a legal technicality
The salient point is explained in the last section of the article, but for those who are interested in this particular case it is worth reading in its entirety. Its authors are Ben Mathews, Professor in the School of Law at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, Principal Research Fellow in the QUT Faculty of Law, and Director of the multi-Faculty Childhood Adversity Research Program and Mark Thomas, Senior Lecturer in QUT's Law School, teaching Professional Ethics and Administrative Law.
I now regard the article I quoted from as an extremely curious interpretation of why the High Court found in favour of Pell. It made it look as though it was on grounds of a legal technicality. That's what the title said and the authors repeated the assertion in the text. They argued that:
and Pell won because:The High Court allowed “special leave to appeal”. This is unusual, as special leave applications arguing an unreasonable verdict are frequently refused, including in child sexual offence cases.
It can only grant leave if the case involves a question of legal principle, or if – as found here – there’s a question of the administration of justice.
Pell claimed the Court of Appeal caused a miscarriage of justice by misapplying the legal test.
The question for the High Court in whether to give special leave was not about Pell's guilt, or whether the jury was right in their verdict.
It was whether the case involved an issue engaging the interests of the administration of justice.
This was supposed to be the legal technicality with which Pell got off the hook, and it is utter bullshit. One need not - and the High Court did not - resort to invoking an elevated technical legal status to disagree with the jury's unanimous decision and the majority decision of the judges in the first appeal that the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.The High Court has given claims about 'lack of opportunity' an elevated technical legal status
Here is what I think of the situation: It is beyond the High Court's remit to override the verdicts of lower courts unless new evidence or a procedural error has come to light. In the absence of either it should not even have accepted the application for a hearing. It can't just pull rank and say "We disagree". Yet that is precisely what it has done. The High Court has acted exactly like any other old boys' network. Its decision is a travesty of justice.
