Confirmation he will be stripped of his Order of Australia. I am somewhat disappointed he was given one in the first place.

https://apple.news/AAVi3AIuIT2G3-nxlB1dnoA

Of course meanwhile we have this gem...........

http://theconversation.com/the-melbourne-archbishop-said-hed-rather-go-to-jail-than-break-confession-confidentiality-a-new-bill-could-send-him-there-121869

I'm sure Carnot will jump in and claim the Jones' Defence i.e. "My comments were misinterpreted", but seriously.

While it certainly has caused a stir, if it were an Imam that said the same thing the Internet would be awash with abuse from the great  unwashed, and the washed, calling for the guys head and tarring every Muslim with the same brush.

So you'l excuse me for saying that all Catholics can bite my shiny metal ar$e

Well what’s your take on the psychology of Pell maintaining his innocence whilst also effectively saying ‘6 years is fair enough’?

The 'psychology' of that would be the decision to rely on his lawyers' word on what they considered a sound legal strategy.

To appeal against the severity of a sentence requires showing that there was an error in the sentencing process.

I've now read the original sentencing remarks which show that the judge made every effort to ensure that the sentence was quite conservative, possibly as a result of the judge being tipped off that this was a case where the justice system could not afford to have an appeal upheld. The base sentence (the sentence for the most severe charge) was only four years out of a maximum ten for a non-aggravated charge which probably should have been aggravated.

Being quite a low end sentence, it's hard to see how any more than a couple of months could have been trimmed off it. On the other hand, there was a huge amount of room for it to be increased on appeal.

Surely a truly innocent man would also see any penalty for something they were not guilty of as unjust?

Were I falsely accused/convicted to spend even a couple of days in custody I would appeal both the trial/verdict and the penalty.

The way to appeal the penalty in that case is to successfully appeal the verdict and get it overturned so there is no penalty at all.

If you had been given a light sentence (remember that the sentencing process doesn't start until after the verdict is reached) and appealing the sentencing process was more likely to see it increased rather than decreased, I would hope that your lawyer would make every effort to take your emotions out of play and get you to see reason.

It'll definitely go to the High Court.

Far from likely. The High Court only grants special leave to 12% of the applications it receives.

I think a significant factor was his closeness to known and proven evil priests/predators in the Ballarat Diocese.

Quite the opposite.

If you read the original sentencing remarks, you will see that the judge went to painstaking efforts to ensure that Pell was only convicted for his actions and not as a scapegoat for others.

The redacted parts of the Royal Commission report are a completely different matter, and I hope these will be released once Pell's avenues of appeal are closed.

I think I may have said it before, but Robert Richter's great mistake was failing to put Pell in the witness box. It's his standard tactic with his criminal clientele, most of whom would probably trip themselves up under cross examination. Had I been a member of the jury, I would have seriously considered why the man of God failed to swear an oath on his Bible to tell the truth. With his record of public utterances, I couldn't see Pell failing a cross examination.

I think I may have said it before, but Robert Richter's great mistake was failing to put Pell in the witness box. It's his standard tactic with his criminal clientele, most of whom would probably trip themselves up under cross examination. Had I been a member of the jury, I would have seriously considered why the man of God failed to swear an oath on his Bible to tell the truth. With his record of public utterances, I couldn't see Pell failing a cross examination.

I agree on that.

Remember the time he went on Q&A and ran rings around Richard Dawkins?

Of course meanwhile we have this gem...........

http://theconversation.com/the-melbourne-archbishop-said-hed-rather-go-to-jail-than-break-confession-confidentiality-a-new-bill-could-send-him-there-121869

I'm sure Carnot will jump in and claim the Jones' Defence i.e. "My comments were misinterpreted", but seriously.

While it certainly has caused a stir, if it were an Imam that said the same thing the Internet would be awash with abuse from the great  unwashed, and the washed, calling for the guys head and tarring every Muslim with the same brush.

So you'l excuse me for saying that all Catholics can bite my shiny metal ar$e

Pretty simple, pass the bill, start gaoling the Priests under the terms of the bill, with separate and automatic attachment of charges of conspiracy to aid an offender and hinder police investigation, with totality of life sentence, and a guideline of setting a substantial non parole period, ie 10-15 years + 2 years for every time they shifted someone to a different parish instead of reporting.


Short sentences, relatively tiny non parole periods and allowing ecclesiastical process isn’t producing outcomes. It’s time we got serious about taking these guys out of circulation.

I think a significant factor was his closeness to known and proven evil priests/predators in the Ballarat Diocese.

Quite the opposite.

If you read the original sentencing remarks, you will see that the judge went to painstaking efforts to ensure that Pell was only convicted for his actions and not as a scapegoat for others.

The redacted parts of the Royal Commission report are a completely different matter, and I hope these will be released once Pell's avenues of appeal are closed.

Meant to be more in relation to "birds of a feather, flock together".  Many such predators are not lone-rangers.  A good example was the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle and the powerful network of morally bankrupt and evil clergy that continued to offend with impunity.

Refer here: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/case_study_42_-_findings_report_-_the_responses_of_the_anglican_diocese_of_newcastle_to_instances_and_allegations_of_child_sexual_abuse.pdf

Just last month the former Dean of the Cathedral was convicted:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-26/graeme-lawrence-anglican-court-sex-offences/11349086

Of course meanwhile we have this gem...........

http://theconversation.com/the-melbourne-archbishop-said-hed-rather-go-to-jail-than-break-confession-confidentiality-a-new-bill-could-send-him-there-121869

I'm sure Carnot will jump in and claim the Jones' Defence i.e. "My comments were misinterpreted", but seriously.

While it certainly has caused a stir, if it were an Imam that said the same thing the Internet would be awash with abuse from the great  unwashed, and the washed, calling for the guys head and tarring every Muslim with the same brush.

So you'l excuse me for saying that all Catholics can bite my shiny metal ar$e

Pretty simple, pass the bill, start gaoling the Priests under the terms of the bill, with separate and automatic attachment of charges of conspiracy to aid an offender and hinder police investigation, with totality of life sentence, and a guideline of setting a substantial non parole period, ie 10-15 years + 2 years for every time they shifted someone to a different parish instead of reporting.


Short sentences, relatively tiny non parole periods and allowing ecclesiastical process isn’t producing outcomes. It’s time we got serious about taking these guys out of circulation.

There's a convincing religious case for breaking the seal of confession:
https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/04/its-time-to-end-the-seal-of-the-confessional-the-religious-case/

Back to the slammer until leave to appeal is or not granted.

"It is of little interest to me"

There's a convincing religious case for breaking the seal of confession:

I'm surprised that there's a convincing religious case about anything.

The Roman Catholic Church has spent a lot of effort trying to paint the surviving witness as a snotty-nosed choir boy bent on revenge. It may be that the witness got on with his life, rather than turn to drugs, and is now a respected member of the community, eg barrister (or SC), surgeon or even a high-ranking church official. In other words, someone who has a lot to lose by perjury or lying.

Well the witness did make a statement saying that he felt compelled to act after the other choir-boy (the only other corroborating witness) died of an overdose. By his own words he only reported to the police some 18 years after the event because he felt guilty about what had happened with his friend becoming a drug-addicted wreak.

But on the other hand the only other corroborating witness denied that the incident had even happened before his death.

I think I may have said it before, but Robert Richter's great mistake was failing to put Pell in the witness box. It's his standard tactic with his criminal clientele, most of whom would probably trip themselves up under cross examination. Had I been a member of the jury, I would have seriously considered why the man of God failed to swear an oath on his Bible to tell the truth. With his record of public utterances, I couldn't see Pell failing a cross examination.

I think Robert Richter was grossly incompetent, especially after the trial when he made that stupid off-the-cuff remark about "vanilla s*x". That was totally prejudicial to the appeal - no wonder he left the defense team after that terrible gaffe.

If you read the original sentencing remarks, you will see that the judge went to painstaking efforts to ensure that Pell was only convicted for his actions and not as a scapegoat for others.

Did the Victoria Police go very hard to get this conviction because they failed in their earlier attempts to prove that he knew about the offending in his time in Ballarat? The DPP do pursue cases against people based on their infamy and it's pretty impossible to erase that image of Pell defending Risdale in 1993.

Many people might feel that Pell himself must have been a pedophile just on the basis of that.

But on the other hand the only other corroborating witness denied that the incident had even happened before his death.

Unfortunately for Pell, that is hearsay and not admissible as evidence.

But on the other hand the only other corroborating witness denied that the incident had even happened before his death.

Unfortunately for Pell, that is hearsay and not admissible as evidence.

I still have some really serious doubts about this conviction, that's all. The dissenting judge (Marcus Weinberg) said that he didn't find the witness to be credible and that there were holes in the story; as we don't have access to the evidence we can't possibly know but he did write this having seen all the testimony (via The Guardian);

Weinberg wrote that the victim’s testimony was unreliable.

In his summary, he said the victim “was inclined to embellish aspects of his account” and that “his evidence contained discrepancies [and] displayed inadequacies”.

In his judgment, he said: “On occasion, he seemed almost to ‘clutch at straws’ in an attempt to minimise, or overcome, the obvious inconsistencies between what he had said on earlier occasions, and what the objective evidence clearly showed.

“There are proven cases of ‘false memory’ of that kind, including, in particular, in relation to sexual offending. The recent decision of this court in Tyrrell provides a classic illustration of an apparently compelling witness whose account had to involve a substantial measure of complete fantasy.

“Nor can it be doubted that some complainants in cases involving sexual abuse, including of children, have fabricated their allegations. Just within the past few weeks, a major scandal involving false allegations of that kind has erupted in England, and received enormous publicity.

“Having had regard to the whole of the evidence led at trial, and having deliberated long and hard over this matter, I find myself in the position of having a genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.”

The entire problem with this kind of observation is that now-days victims are always to be believed no matter what the circumstances - as the protesters outside the Supreme Court were saying immediately after the verdict "every story should be believed" even though it probably shouldn't.

Before any of you go on the attack, notice that I haven't said anything about the guilt or innocence of Pell just that I'm concerned that there's some cause for doubt about the validity of the conviction given what Weinberg has said in his judgement... given the standard in criminal court is supposedly beyond reasonable doubt then it probably should have been thrown out.

Finally I think George Pell will just wear it rather than go to the High Court - if he's truly wrongly convicted and still a devout Christian then I guess he's reflecting right now on the curve-ball that God has thrown him with this...!

That was totally prejudicial to the appeal - no wonder he left the defense team after that terrible gaffe.

That was part of the trial (during sentencing submissions) and is therefore not prejudicial.

Public reactions to the trial are one of the reasons that appeals are heard by judges, not by juries. They need to ensure that they only consider the specified grounds of appeal and pay not attention to other parts of the case.

The sentence was not appealed, so the judges looking at the appeal would not have considered it.

Before any of you go on the attack, notice that I haven't said anything about the guilt or innocence of Pell just that I'm concerned that there's some cause for doubt about the validity of the conviction given what Weinberg has said in his judgement... given the standard in criminal court is supposedly beyond reasonable doubt then it probably should have been thrown out.

The jury found that the charges met that standard and then 2/3 appeal judges confirmed the verdict.

Finally I think George Pell will just wear it rather than go to the High Court …

After having been found guilty by a jury and the verdict confirmed by the appeals court, I think the High Court will only admit an appeal if Pell's legal representatives can show there are grounds to look into an error of law and refuse special leave to an appeal on an error of fact.

The jury found that the charges met that standard and then 2/3 appeal judges confirmed the verdict.

Yeah because our justice system never, ever wrongfully convicts people.

And I'm Princess Margaret.

The sentence was not appealed, so the judges looking at the appeal would not have considered it.

You're absolutely right, judges don't look at the internet, TV or papers at all, there's no way they would have thought about Richter's terrible remark while deliberating.

What this judgement means is that anyone - anyone at all - could come from your past 20 or more years ago and as long as they're a 'credible witness' as to what happened you'll get a conviction. Doesn't matter about how the accused is really being denied natural justice because the events are simply too long ago for you to mount a proper defense.

The fashion now is that accusers are always to be believed no matter how long ago it was. I'm astonished that John Jarrett got off on his rape charge from forty years ago given the way that we operate now-days.

The sentence was not appealed, so the judges looking at the appeal would not have considered it.

You're absolutely right, judges don't look at the internet, TV or papers at all, there's no way they would have thought about Richter's terrible remark while deliberating.

What this judgement means is that anyone - anyone at all - could come from your past 20 or more years ago and as long as they're a 'credible witness' as to what happened you'll get a conviction. Doesn't matter about how the accused is really being denied natural justice because the events are simply too long ago for you to mount a proper defense.

The fashion now is that accusers are always to be believed no matter how long ago it was. I'm astonished that John Jarrett got off on his rape charge from forty years ago given the way that we operate now-days.

Don. Your silly comments are almost contemptuous. Anyhow, we will see if a special appeal to the High Court is allowed, and if so is successful.

The lawyers would need to seek leave for an appeal but on what grounds would it be done other than 1 judge says he was not convinced a jury could have that finding.

That is the same basis Derry Hinch found himself in.

And I'm Princess Margaret.

What, again? Did you really have an affair with Keith Miller?

And I'm Princess Margaret.

What, again? Did you really have an affair with Keith Miller?

Not telling - took my secrets to the grave.

Don, we already have a ‘Mr Von Peters’ around here, in recognition of your similarly silly statements, soon I will have to begin referring to you as ‘Mr Don Peters’.

You have not seen or heard all the evidence, next to no one has! We have been over Mr Richter’s comments and the impact of them before, they were part of sentencing phase, guilt was already established and the comments would have been ignored by the three appeals judges.

Mabo got up on a split decision too you know. Do you suppose we should have accepted on the dissenting ruling there too? Despite my other political ideas, my feeling is we probably shouldn’t.

An original verdict, and a majority confirmation at appeal always has, and always will be good enough.

Don, that Jarrett was acquitted sort of proves that the legal system clearly does not operate as you think it does. You don’t see the irony of your two statements in the very same post?