George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation
Moderator: bbmods
-
think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
Age Editorial:
"Addressing himself directly to Pell and then the many victims of the church who would have tuned in, Judge Kidd said: “As I directed the jury who convicted you in this trial, you are not to be made a scapegoat for any failings or perceived failings of the Catholic Church ... This leads me to say something to other victims of clerical or institutional sexual abuse who may be present in court today or watching or listening elsewhere. This sentence is not and cannot be a vindication of your trauma. Cardinal Pell has not been convicted of any wrongs committed against you.”
The painful ongoing struggle for justice by other victims of paedophile priests is a separate issue, which must find resolution in a fair and efficient redress scheme, genuine remorse and rapid reform from the institutions that failed them and greater protections for the vulnerable."
https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 513z8.html
"Addressing himself directly to Pell and then the many victims of the church who would have tuned in, Judge Kidd said: “As I directed the jury who convicted you in this trial, you are not to be made a scapegoat for any failings or perceived failings of the Catholic Church ... This leads me to say something to other victims of clerical or institutional sexual abuse who may be present in court today or watching or listening elsewhere. This sentence is not and cannot be a vindication of your trauma. Cardinal Pell has not been convicted of any wrongs committed against you.”
The painful ongoing struggle for justice by other victims of paedophile priests is a separate issue, which must find resolution in a fair and efficient redress scheme, genuine remorse and rapid reform from the institutions that failed them and greater protections for the vulnerable."
https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 513z8.html
And:
"The jury’s unanimous verdict has been condemned by some commentators, but none of them can know what the victim ... told the jury members in closed court. He has been found to be a truthful and reliable witness.
We urge those who have criticised the verdict and sentence to read in full the sentencing remarks of Judge Kidd."
We know those "some commentators" includes Age journos. That bit of the editorial is a bit weird. Kidd's remarks surely explain the sentence, not the verdict. And the editorial's stuff about "unanimous" is glaringly choosing to ignore the first jury, who heard exactly the same thing (except live). Which doesn't mean the first jury was right and the second wrong, of course...
"The jury’s unanimous verdict has been condemned by some commentators, but none of them can know what the victim ... told the jury members in closed court. He has been found to be a truthful and reliable witness.
We urge those who have criticised the verdict and sentence to read in full the sentencing remarks of Judge Kidd."
We know those "some commentators" includes Age journos. That bit of the editorial is a bit weird. Kidd's remarks surely explain the sentence, not the verdict. And the editorial's stuff about "unanimous" is glaringly choosing to ignore the first jury, who heard exactly the same thing (except live). Which doesn't mean the first jury was right and the second wrong, of course...
Why George Pell's case needed to be decided by jury
https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 513tu.html
[Title a bit misleading: Just the anonymous author's personal experience on a jury.]
https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 513tu.html
[Title a bit misleading: Just the anonymous author's personal experience on a jury.]
-
Jezza
- Posts: 29540
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
- Location: Ponsford End
- Has liked: 271 times
- Been liked: 347 times
Jeremy Bentham would be proudDavid wrote:This is a very utilitarian argument. I like it (even if I'm not sure I can agree with it on principle!)stui magpie wrote:I'm pretty much in the same camp as Swoop here, except for one little piece.
Sometimes it's better for an innocent man to cop the wrap (assuming that there isn't a guilty party walking free) if that finding provides a benefit to multiple others.
Even if Pell is found not guilty on appeal, his career is stuffed. He'll never be back in the Vatican or hold any senior position, we'll "retire" and fade from sight.
The guy's rising 78 and has health issues. He's not going to be around for long regardless. To all the multitude of people who suffered at the hands of the church, Pell being found guilt bought a measure of justice being seen to be done, even if he had nothing to do with them personally. Him being acquitted on appeal would just rip that scar wide open.
So if an innocent man has to suffer for the sins of others, how very Catholic.
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | From stuff.co.nz via Fairfax:David wrote:I think there's definitely something more democratic in theory about a jury (i.e. they are just ordinary citizens from all walks of life), and we need to not get too caught up in elitism and remember that judges, too, may suffer from their own biases and limitations. I think it's clear that our justice system has a lot of components that are frustratingly imperfect, so I guess the only question is whether it's actually possible to improve upon them or whether, like democracy, this is the best worst system available.
"Crimes punishable by more than 14 years' prison - including murder - must be tried by a jury in New Zealand, the former judge [Roy Wade] said."
Which sounds like it leaves open the possibility of non-jury trials for crimes that are still quite serious.
^^
https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/crim ... of-trials/
"There are 2 types of trials:
judge-alone trials
jury trials.
...
Category 1 or 2 crimes: For less serious crimes, you have no option other than a judge-alone trial. Depending on the nature of the crime (offence), your case will be heard by either by a judge, justice of the peace or community magistrate. There will be no jury.
Category 3 crimes: For category 3 crimes (offences), you have a choice of a judge-alone trial but you could choose to have a jury trial within the District Court.
Category 4 crimes: If you are charged with a category 4 crime (offence), you’ll have a jury trial at the High Court. Members of the public will be summoned to the court to form a jury, to hear the facts of your case."
http://www.victimsinfo.govt.nz/police-i ... -offences/
"Category 1 offence
Category 1 offences are relatively minor offences, such as careless driving. These offences are punishable by a fine only. Category 1 offences are heard by a judge alone in the District Court.
Category 2 offence
Category 2 offences, such as common assault, have a maximum punishment of up to two years imprisonment or a community based sentence. These offences are usually heard by a judge alone in the District Court.
Category 3 offence
Category 3 offences are more serious offences, like aggravated assault, kidnapping or threatening to kill. These offences are punishable by imprisonment for 2 years or more. Category 3 offences can be heard by a judge alone or, if the defendant chooses, by a judge and jury. They are usually heard in the District Court but can be transferred to the High Court.
Category 4 offence
Category 4 offences, such as murder or manslaughter, are the most serious offences. These offences are punishable by life imprisonment or by imprisonment for 2 years or more. Category 4 offences are heard by a judge and jury in the High Court."
https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/crim ... of-trials/
"There are 2 types of trials:
judge-alone trials
jury trials.
...
Category 1 or 2 crimes: For less serious crimes, you have no option other than a judge-alone trial. Depending on the nature of the crime (offence), your case will be heard by either by a judge, justice of the peace or community magistrate. There will be no jury.
Category 3 crimes: For category 3 crimes (offences), you have a choice of a judge-alone trial but you could choose to have a jury trial within the District Court.
Category 4 crimes: If you are charged with a category 4 crime (offence), you’ll have a jury trial at the High Court. Members of the public will be summoned to the court to form a jury, to hear the facts of your case."
http://www.victimsinfo.govt.nz/police-i ... -offences/
"Category 1 offence
Category 1 offences are relatively minor offences, such as careless driving. These offences are punishable by a fine only. Category 1 offences are heard by a judge alone in the District Court.
Category 2 offence
Category 2 offences, such as common assault, have a maximum punishment of up to two years imprisonment or a community based sentence. These offences are usually heard by a judge alone in the District Court.
Category 3 offence
Category 3 offences are more serious offences, like aggravated assault, kidnapping or threatening to kill. These offences are punishable by imprisonment for 2 years or more. Category 3 offences can be heard by a judge alone or, if the defendant chooses, by a judge and jury. They are usually heard in the District Court but can be transferred to the High Court.
Category 4 offence
Category 4 offences, such as murder or manslaughter, are the most serious offences. These offences are punishable by life imprisonment or by imprisonment for 2 years or more. Category 4 offences are heard by a judge and jury in the High Court."
-
Jezza
- Posts: 29540
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
- Location: Ponsford End
- Has liked: 271 times
- Been liked: 347 times
I did study it briefly when I undertook human rights law as an elective.K wrote:Did you have to study Jeremy Bentham at university too?Jezza wrote:Jeremy Bentham would be proudDavid wrote:...
This is a very utilitarian argument. I like it (even if I'm not sure I can agree with it on principle!)
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | Mosman swimming teacher on child sex charges allowed to keep job after complaint
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/mos ... 515qw.html
'The accused's barrister, Todd Alexis, said it was "improbable" that a "young man like Mr Daniels" would commit such a serious offence in a public swimming complex.
But the magistrate responded dryly, "We have a cardinal that's now in jail; that was improbable. The nature of these matters are that they are improbable, and surprising people who are otherwise seen to be people of character."'
[A bit ... err... inappropriate?... Fairfax chooses to highlight what school he went to.]
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/mos ... 515qw.html
'The accused's barrister, Todd Alexis, said it was "improbable" that a "young man like Mr Daniels" would commit such a serious offence in a public swimming complex.
But the magistrate responded dryly, "We have a cardinal that's now in jail; that was improbable. The nature of these matters are that they are improbable, and surprising people who are otherwise seen to be people of character."'
[A bit ... err... inappropriate?... Fairfax chooses to highlight what school he went to.]
-
David
- Posts: 50681
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 83 times
I’m usually on Team Law when it comes to disputes with the media, but this is embarrassing and ridiculous, and I hope it gets shot down ASAP. Paul Barry puts it well here:
https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episo ... l/10867488
https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episo ... l/10867488
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
What's the range of possible penalties? A massive fine for the newspapers might be better than jail time for individuals.
I see the NYT (which has an Australian bureau) chose to comply with the order, with no fuss and no sniping once the order was lifted. Local media are afflicted by some terrible disease in this regard.
I see the NYT (which has an Australian bureau) chose to comply with the order, with no fuss and no sniping once the order was lifted. Local media are afflicted by some terrible disease in this regard.
Multiple trials possible over Pell contempt case
https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 51e81.html
'The Supreme Court in Melbourne heard on Monday that there had never been case of its kind involving contempt charges of this nature.
"The proceedings raise very serious allegations against 13 media organisations. It’s as significant as it gets in terms of convictions," said barrister Matthew Collins, QC, who is representing the media.
...
The Office of Public Prosecutions alleges the media organisations and individuals prejudiced and interfered with "due administration of justice in the prosecution of Pell", "aided and abetted overseas media's contempt", and that their publishing "had the effect of scandalising the court".
Dr Collins, who is the president of the Victorian Bar, argued the offence of scandalising the court was "unknown to the law".'
https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 51e81.html
'The Supreme Court in Melbourne heard on Monday that there had never been case of its kind involving contempt charges of this nature.
"The proceedings raise very serious allegations against 13 media organisations. It’s as significant as it gets in terms of convictions," said barrister Matthew Collins, QC, who is representing the media.
...
The Office of Public Prosecutions alleges the media organisations and individuals prejudiced and interfered with "due administration of justice in the prosecution of Pell", "aided and abetted overseas media's contempt", and that their publishing "had the effect of scandalising the court".
Dr Collins, who is the president of the Victorian Bar, argued the offence of scandalising the court was "unknown to the law".'