Bye Bye to George Pell

 
  theanimal Chief Commissioner

"Looked after" implies that he took good care of it. We know, from his own words and other reports, that he completely ignored instances of sexual abuse from some of the clergy there.
Valvegear


Yes, what was his memorable line?;

It was of little interest to me

tell me about your compassionate God george.

Sponsored advertisement

  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
Absolutely. I'm not. But as you elude to, some have. And they will continue to.

But what I want to know is are wehappy to relinquish the tall poppy?

Regards
davesvline

The tall poppy syndrome is merely an invention of the privileged and celebrity classes to deflect from their own misdemeanours.

It is not exclusively Australian.
  davesvline Chief Commissioner

Location: 1983-1998
I know that, but Aussies being particularly good at it.

If George's appeal fails, we'll see what "Special treatment" he gets?

Time will tell.

Regards
  billybaxter Chief Commissioner

Location: Bosnia Park, Fairfield
I agree with Bingley. The tall poppy thing, like mateship, exists worldwide but Australians seem to think they're the only ones who do it, or are particularly good at it. Just different names for envy and close friendship, which have existed for quite a while I believe.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

Guess who else might be joining Pell in the slammer?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-26/journalists-accused-of-breaking-pell-suppression-face-jail-terms/10939980

"Dozens of Australian news organisations and journalists face possible "orders for imprisonment" or fines for alleged contempt of court over their coverage of Cardinal George Pell's conviction for child sexual abuse.


Thirty-six news agencies and individuals have been called to a Supreme Court hearing on April 15 to answer accusations they breached a suppression order when publishing material about the trial last year.

Among those named in documents filed by the Victorian Department of Public Prosecutions on Friday are The Age editor Alex Lavelle, Herald Sun editor Damon Johnston, 2GB host Ray Hadley and Channel Nine presenter Deborah Knight"
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

Given that being a dcikhead is not a criminal offence, I'd be happy if this is what it takes to lock up Ray Hadley Razz
  Carnot Minister for Railways

Deborah Knight might need to co-host the Today Show from the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre in Deer Park.  Kind of like watching an episode of Prisoner over Breakfast....
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
The case for breaching the suppression won’t go far. I have seen much more revealing detail published in suppressed cases which the court didn’t care about.

Internationally it made the news big time, and I knew about it through contacts here, yet my friends were astounded when they first heard. I didn’t mention it to them simply because I figured they all knew already.
  DJPeters Deputy Commissioner

Really the only suppression orders in cases like this is anything that might identify the victims, anything else should be fair game to the media. Including anything about the person charged that might be of newsworthy value to the people at large. To many crims use suppression orders for their own good and it is usually to keep quiet long careers at being bad boys or girls.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

Really the only suppression orders in cases like this is anything that might identify the victims, anything else should be fair game to the media. Including anything about the person charged that might be of newsworthy value to the people at large. To many crims use suppression orders for their own good and it is usually to keep quiet long careers at being bad boys or girls.
DJPeters
Sorry, but this is plain wrong.

The suppression order in this case was to protect the integrity of the other trial which Pell was due to face soon afterwards. Once that case collapsed, there was nothing to protect and the order was lifted. You wouldn't have wanted millions of dollars to be unnecessarily wasted on doing the whole trial over again with a fresh jury, or worse still him getting off on a technicality, would you?

The other main reason for a suppression order is when there are other cases related to the same matter due to be tried at a different time or still under investigation.
  574M White Guru

Location: Shepparton
You know, if you go to zenit.com all the articles about George Pell mention "the appeal"...
they really haven't learned the lesson, over there.
  DJPeters Deputy Commissioner

Really the only suppression orders in cases like this is anything that might identify the victims, anything else should be fair game to the media. Including anything about the person charged that might be of newsworthy value to the people at large. To many crims use suppression orders for their own good and it is usually to keep quiet long careers at being bad boys or girls.
Sorry, but this is plain wrong.

The suppression order in this case was to protect the integrity of the other trial which Pell was due to face soon afterwards. Once that case collapsed, there was nothing to protect and the order was lifted. You wouldn't have wanted millions of dollars to be unnecessarily wasted on doing the whole trial over again with a fresh jury, or worse still him getting off on a technicality, would you?

The other main reason for a suppression order is when there are other cases related to the same matter due to be tried at a different time or still under investigation.
justapassenger
That might be so but as I said too many criminals use the suppression orders in courts of law not to do that but to save their name being published in the media. I have no problem if it is used properly if further cases are involved, but unfortunately it is abused by those that do want to get away with murder, amonst other things. Suppression orders were originally brought in to protect the victims not those that are facing charges in a court, but over the years the goal posts have been moved quite considerably so now it applies to any one in a court that wants to keep their errrrrrrr good name out of the media.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

bla bla bla BS BS BS
DJPeters
Sorry, but that is plainly not true. You've clearly been misinformed.

Suppression orders are not granted willy nilly just because a suspect wants to keep their name out of the press, they are only granted where a judge is satisfied that releasing the details could compromise that trial or another one.

Most suppression orders in Australia are actually applied for by prosecutors, because they don't want to see guilty criminals walk free on technicalities.

Why are you so keen to see the justice system compromised and criminals walking free every time that a reporter with more ambition than brains wants to make a name for themselves?
  georges Chief Train Controller

There must be suppression orders and suppression orders. This one - https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/WikiLeaks-Australian-suppression-order.pdf - was made on the grounds that disclosure of the Securency bribery  case would embarrass foreign governments. Like the Pell case, and Informant 3838, anyone who wanted to find out the details could have done so.

The High Court became involved in the Securency and 3838 cases:

https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2018/11/29/news-putting-names-to-pseudonyms/

https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2018/12/03/news-the-court-reveals-a-legal-scandal/
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

No process is ever going to work perfectly, you have to take the rough with the smooth.

The downside of suppression orders is that occasionally a suspect will get away with avoiding media coverage for a while. So long as it all comes out once the need for the order expires, no big deal.

The downside of dumping suppression orders is that criminals will walk free. Very big deal.

A good step forward to improve transparency without causing further detriments would be to have the details of any suppression order explained at the time when it is lifted, including the details of which party/ies applied for it.
  DJPeters Deputy Commissioner

bla bla bla BS BS BS
Sorry, but that is plainly not true. You've clearly been misinformed.

Suppression orders are not granted willy nilly just because a suspect wants to keep their name out of the press, they are only granted where a judge is satisfied that releasing the details could compromise that trial or another one.

Most suppression orders in Australia are actually applied for by prosecutors, because they don't want to see guilty criminals walk free on technicalities.

Why are you so keen to see the justice system compromised and criminals walking free every time that a reporter with more ambition than brains wants to make a name for themselves?
justapassenger
They will not openly say that they want to keep their name out of the media but on a big case a lawyer will most probably say something along the lines of to ease the discomfort caused to family or some such thing, but it amounts to the same thing they dont want their name bandied about in the media. A judge or magistrate will then most likely agree and order the suppression of names or other things though. You see it here in SA being used like this at times. If anything a supression order should only have a set time it operates like two weeks after the case has been heard and then it automatically is lifted. I am not saying use two weeks though just citing a time period to demonstrate it. Also all suppression orders should have a set time to them and the cases they can be used on, meaning that in a little case of shoplifting or something it cannot be used, but in a major case like murder or something they can apply certain suppression orders to the case. In other words a pre made out list of what can be used in what court cases. At the moment it is left up to a Judge or Magistrate to do, the list would be fairer way to do it though.

They should not be set free on technicalities in the first place, if the evidence is there convict them on it. Like I said if a judge or magistrate thinks that a suppression order is needed in the case he can choose from a pre made list to make all like cases consistant so it is fairer at the moment it is all over the place with these orders, more so if you are somebody. If you are innocent then it can be proved if not do the crime then do the time. I am not keen to do anything of the sort but the justice system needs to be hauled into the 21st century it is still back in the 1800's in most states at the moment.

Children or witness protection orders though remain as is for ever if necessary.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
They will not openly say that they want to keep their name out of the media but on a big case a lawyer will most probably say something along the lines of to ease the discomfort caused to family or some such thing, but it amounts to the same thing they dont want their name bandied about in the media.
DJPeters
'They' will not openly say they want to keep their names out of the media, because they don't need to say that, irrespective of the reason for a suppression order to 'keep their names out of the media' is the precise reason suppression orders are granted.

Victim protection is a big deal, so to the protection of the accused family. Children of an alleged pedophile/murderer/criminal do not need other children in the school yard/playground asking them questions or otherwise giving them a hard time for their parent's misbehavior. Victims of rape or other assault do not need to have their attacker's name publicised continuously in the open media, they've had to deal with that enough.


A judge or magistrate will then most likely agree and order the suppression of names or other things though.
DJPeters
Good!


You see it here in SA being used like this at times.
DJPeters
Tell us what the last case to be subject to a suppression order in South Australia was, and why you think it should not have been granted. How did this suppression order specifically affect your life? How would your life have been improved by knowing the suppressed details at the time?


If anything a supression order should only have a set time it operates like two weeks after the case has been heard and then it automatically is lifted. I am not saying use two weeks though just citing a time period to demonstrate it.
DJPeters
Most suppression orders are lifted as soon as practicable, some do not even last to the end of the trial. Hard limits are foolish, take the Pell situation, the suppression on his name and the trial outcome was done to protect a future case, suppose that case didn't make it to court within your defined time before automatically lifting it?


Also all suppression orders should have a set time to them and the cases they can be used on, meaning that in a little case of shoplifting or something it cannot be used, but in a major case like murder or something they can apply certain suppression orders to the case. In other words a pre made out list of what can be used in what court cases. At the moment it is left up to a Judge or Magistrate to do, the list would be fairer way to do it though.
DJPeters
Seriously, and I mean seriously, when was the last time you saw a 'shoplifter' in court? Please advise of the last 'shoplifting case' subjected to a suppression order? Has that happened ever?

The granting of suppression orders, their scope and period of application is left to the discretion of the trial judge, generally because they are in the best and most objective position to judge how the suppression order needs to be made. One size fits all as you suggest doesn't work once you acknowledge that invariably no two cases are the same.


They should not be set free on technicalities in the first place
DJPeters
An astounding statement from you, the man near single handedly outlining the case for providing the very technical breach of trial conduct suppression orders seek to prevent.


if the evidence is there convict them on it.
DJPeters
This is traditionally how it works. Do you mean to suggest that trials work on some other basis?

The Pell suppression (like nearly all suppression orders) was sought by the prosecution, we need to maintain fairness and an absence of bias in our legal system. Naming him and his convictions in the current trial would have all but made i impossible to find an impartial jury for the subsequent (dropped) case, that Sir, is what you call a 'technicality'. Forget a second conviction, we cannot even assess the evidence in that case...


If you are innocent then it can be proved if not do the crime then do the time.
DJPeters
Just so you know, this is the exact opposite of how our legal system works.




FYI, I have breached suppression orders before, I attended nearly everyday of the Bunting and Wagner trial, nearly everyday there was something suppressed, sometimes more than one thing. It was nearly impossible for a non professional person to keep up. I named Vlassakis whilst his name was suppressed, and also mentioned victim Ray Davies name who's name was suppressed until quite recently. The trial was well over although Haydon's trial had not commenced. Nothing came of it, but I shouldn't have done it.

Just about every suppression in that trial was to protect evidence in case of a mistrial, honestly David, was your life so impacted that you were not allowed to be told what colour the barrels were? Would you have felt better if you knew what Vlassakis looked like? Or if you knew which ATMs they fraudulently drew money from?

Would knowing the name of the clown who killed a family because the daughter wasn't interested in him have changed your understanding of a case? I went to that trial too, I looked at that piece of smeg many times, knew his name and saw the evidence that you couldn't see - of that you should be thankful.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr Peters here would have a slightly different view of things in the event that he got put on trial for something he didn't do. Maybe something quite embarrassing which the trashy News Ltd tabloids would love to report in all the lurid details they possibly could.

Imagine, for example, that the evidence was flimsy but a jury still found it easier to believe than his attempts to prove his innocence by saying they had the wrong guy and should really be looking for David von Peters.

All the provisions built up over time to preserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt might suddenly become a lot more important.


There's no doubt that the present system is not perfect, but any changes should only take place if they improve the system rather than take it backwards.
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
Worse than trial by media is trial by social media.
At least even the Murdoch rags adhere to the rules of the court and even some requests by the Police etc.   There are requests for faecesbook and the others but it is usually too late by the time they get around to doing anything.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
It’s fairly easy for a corporation to adhere to suppression order, they have maybe a dozen papers, maybe 100 court reporters, maybe 100 publications a day and a bunch of legal advisers to keep track of the suppressions. Not to mention a bunch of people that stand to lose a lot if they get it wrong.

Facebook has potentially a billion reporters, none of whom potentially have a great deal to lose in terms of their financial position and whom in Facebook is capable of monitoring the near the literal infinite number of postings? It’s impossible.

Facebook is not to blame for what appears on there, the users are, but your average user doesn’t care because they don’t have sufficient to lose, if indeed they even belong in a relevant jurisdiction in the first place.

To the most heavily suppressed case I am familiar with, most of what Mr Peters doesn’t know about the events bringing about the trial was suppressed from him in South Australia but was publishable (and indeed it was published) in the eastern states, and likely the western one as well.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

That was the certainly what happened in the case of Bernard Finnigan, the former member of the SA Legislative Council who was found guilty of accessing child smeg.

The suppression of publication which automatically applies to sexual crimes in SA (up to the trial commencing) had force only in SA, while papers interstate were able to report on it.

Given the extremely adverse public stigma attached to people charged with sexual crimes (Finnigan's house was attacked a number of times before he was even committed to trial, let alone found guilty) even if the charges get dropped before trial, I'm quite happy with this arrangement as being a suitable system for protecting the justice system.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
One interesting thing about the Finnigan case is that the search term(s) he entered into Google to ‘access*’ the material are no longer suppressed in South Australia, but media Australia wide opted not to report them anyway. I am pleased Mr Peters doesn’t seem to want to know those terms... Now that is a low blow for sure, but suppose there was similar evidence led in a case where someone searched out specific terms to commit murder(s) or an act of terrorism, or a bombing (Adelaide NCA office style), Mr Peters you seem to have no problem with the effective immediate release of those details? No thanks, let’s not make the copycat criminal’s job that easy.

*For something like 165 seconds wasn’t it?

The second interesting thing about Finnigan is that once again we had someone charged with kiddie crimes being given a fairly glowing reference by their local Catholic Church... Will they ever learn?
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
George Pell has had his appeal heard over the past 2 days in the Supreme Court, he will now have to wait for at least a few weeks until he finds out if he is not guilty or not. or they order a retrial.
  Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dalby Qld
George Pell ... will now have to wait for at least a few weeks until he finds out if he is not guilty or not.
lsrailfan
Huh? I'm pretty sure he knows if he is guilty or not right now and has for some time!
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
George Pell ... will now have to wait for at least a few weeks until he finds out if he is not guilty or not.
Huh? I'm pretty sure he knows if he is guilty or not right now and has for some time!
Graham4405
No not really, but if the appeal court quashes it, doesn't that mean that in fact he is NOT guilty?? *Edit, I may be wrong on that, not too sure how the system works.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.