Cardinal George Pell falsely accused

[Scot Dutchy]

We never use juries for that simple reason.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, there's a reason we call them our 'betters' isn't there?

[pErvinalia]

Judges appointed by governments?? We can't trust governments. Look at what they are doing with this corona hoax!

[laklak]

And 5G mind control!

Fuk the gummint!

[Svartalf]

Well, maybe they could have convened a jury of churchmen?

[Brian Peacock]

Amen to that brother Svarty.

[Svartalf]

Judges appointed by governments?? We can't trust governments. Look at what they are doing with this corona hoax!

I'll trust a judge appointed by the government after passing a very hard exam on their jurdical knowledge and ability and 2 or 3 years of specialized training over any shyster elected by a bunch of morons and ignoramuses.

[NineBerry]

As far as I know this last decision was made by a judge and not a jury

[JimC]

As far as I know this last decision was made by a judge and not a jury

What it did was very unusual in Oz - the judges overturned a jury decision...

The Vatican's reach is long, just like Sauron...

[Hermit]

As far as I know this last decision was made by a judge and not a jury

What it did was very unusual in Oz - the judges overturned a jury decision...

The Vatican's reach is long, just like Sauron...

The 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.

[Sean Hayden]

What's wrong with sacrificing him for the good of all? Australia must have thousands of people who deserve a second look but will never get one, and for what? Exactly, as a sacrifice to the functioning of the system. You can't have nothing after all. I agree. So just add this guy to the list of acceptable casualties and be done with it. Why encourage further divisions and hatred?

Even worse, they'll do it while their experts champion the decision as a victory for the law.

high-minded dummies...

[JimC]

There are civil cases against him waiting in the wings (shades of OJ Simpson...). Also, other recent accusations will (hopefully) bring fresh charges, from back in his past. In some ways, his real evil is that he has been part of the catholic hierarchy that turned a blind eye to nests of paedophile priests all over Oz...

[Brian Peacock]

If the citizenry can't be trusted to render a sound verdict for a cardinal then there should be a retrial in the court of appeal.

Is anyone trying to equate the recent decision with an exoneration of the man?

[pErvinalia]

Yep. Murdoch's The Australian newspaper.

[Brian Peacock]

:spit: Damn his eyes.