he same man when giving evidence before the Royal Commission who denied knowing of the offending of Gerald Risdale said "Ridsdale's offending, once he did become aware of it, was a 'sad story' but was 'not of much interest' to him. And he answered 'no' when asked whether every priest has responsibility for the safety of children taken into the Church's care"

let us see now when they release the redacted parts of the Roy Commission that have been Sub-judice until this appeal ran its course.

At the very least, he’s spent sometime in the big house.
In my view deservedly so, just for those comments above, alone.

I wonder what this decision means for the various books which have been written on the subject?  Might we see some revisions?

Ordering an acquittal is a somewhat extraordinary step for what was essentially a 'reasonable doubt' appeal, and puts Australia's system of trial by jury at great peril.

This is the sort of case where a re-trial should be ordered, or more philosphically a case that should have been tried under Scots Law where the verdict of 'Not Proven' might have been appropriate.

I don't think this will be the end of it. There could be more charges to come, plus potential legislative reforms (probably starting in states other than Victoria) to reinforce the jury trial and limit the scope of appeals.

There needs to be a statute of limitations, end-of-story. How do you defend yourself against allegations from twenty or thirty years ago?

he same man when giving evidence before the Royal Commission who denied knowing of the offending of Gerald Risdale said "Ridsdale's offending, once he did become aware of it, was a 'sad story' but was 'not of much interest' to him. And he answered 'no' when asked whether every priest has responsibility for the safety of children taken into the Church's care"

let us see now when they release the redacted parts of the Roy Commission that have been Sub-judice until this appeal ran its course.

At the very least, he’s spent sometime in the big house.
In my view deservedly so, just for those comments above, alone.

He's an unsympathetic character, that's true - but nobody deserves to go to jail for something they didn't do just because you don't like them or you don't like their attitude.

The ABC and the Victoria Police will be crushed that this happened - after all the work they put in to getting that conviction.

There needs to be a statute of limitations, end-of-story. How do you defend yourself against allegations from twenty or thirty years ago?

I very much disagree - most genuine victims don't come forward until 20-30 years afterwards.

There needs to be a statute of limitations, end-of-story. How do you defend yourself against allegations from twenty or thirty years ago?

I very much disagree - most genuine victims don't come forward until 20-30 years afterwards.

I'll ask you again: How do you as the accused defend yourself from allegations thirty years ago? It's a denial of natural justice - sorry but if you waited too long to make your allegations public then you waited too long.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is a disgrace, releasing the following statement at lunchtime:

I make no comment about today’s High Court decision. But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse: I see you. I hear you. I believe you.

So accusers are always right and the accused are always guilty? Put a sock in it, Dan - it was your police force that misled a jury about Pell's guilt and I hope there's a full and frank investigation into why that happened.

But being the People's Republic of Victoria I doubt it.

Agree with the above posts Daniel Andrews has never been someone who has support for the judiciary.

Yes, I found it a very odd remark by Dan Andrews.

But the Roman Catholic Church still needs to "clean house" of its predators, Calibrian mafia links (which Pell discovered when reviewing the Vatican Bank), and clericalism.

I've often been curious as to how deep the infiltration of the Victorian judiciary by the Ndrangheta mafia is...

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is a disgrace, releasing the following statement at lunchtime:

I make no comment about today’s High Court decision. But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse: I see you. I hear you. I believe you.

So accusers are always right and the accused are always guilty? Put a sock in it, Dan - it was your police force that misled a jury about Pell's guilt and I hope there's a full and frank investigation into why that happened.

But being the People's Republic of Victoria I doubt it.

Why waste time and money on an Investigation? Pell got acquitted and one should be grateful for that.

Some old dude got acquitted, yeah like that has never happened before! Nothing to see here.


Michael

Agree with the above posts Daniel Andrews has never been someone who has support for the judiciary.

Oh come off it. First of all do you have any proof? And second of all even if hasnt he would not be the only one. Seriously, the Judicial system has been criticised from pillar to post by all sorts including the Herald Sun and now all of sudden some now have the judiciary's back because old dude Pell got acquitted?

Really?


Michael

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is a disgrace, releasing the following statement at lunchtime:

I make no comment about today’s High Court decision. But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse: I see you. I hear you. I believe you.

So accusers are always right and the accused are always guilty? Put a sock in it, Dan - it was your police force that misled a jury about Pell's guilt and I hope there's a full and frank investigation into why that happened.

But being the People's Republic of Victoria I doubt it.

Why waste time and money on an Investigation? Pell got acquitted and one should be grateful for that.

Some old dude got acquitted, yeah like that has never happened before! Nothing to see here.


Michael

Trial by jury got the wrong result - by unanimous verdict of the High Court. Nothing to see here - really?

@don_dunstan Yep really. Pell is just some old dude who has been acquitted. Nothing to see here.


Michael

Why is he now heading to Sydney?  To get out of the pressure cooker?

There needs to be a statute of limitations, end-of-story. How do you defend yourself against allegations from twenty or thirty years ago?

I very much disagree - most genuine victims don't come forward until 20-30 years afterwards.

I'll ask you again: How do you as the accused defend yourself from allegations thirty years ago? It's a denial of natural justice - sorry but if you waited too long to make your allegations public then you waited too long.

Why is this any different to anything else, like murder?

So a person committing a murder 20 to 30 years ago should be let off?

So a person committing a sex act against a child 20 to 30 years ago should be let off?

Get real. Ok you are supporting Pell, but don't change the system to support the person. Victims of crime deserve an opportunity to raise an allegation without fear.

You should be pleased, as the judicial system worked for Pell. The system eventually worked for him. The High Court worked.

It is interesting the stats on how many people found convicted of a crime against kids have successful appeals. It either says that there are many false allegations or the system of proving beyond a reasonable doubt in a case of he says-he says is too challenging for our system.

All this will do is to discourage victims of child molestation or of another sex crime, not to bother to come forward and report it. I am not sure if this is an outcome that is healthy for our society.

BTW I am not saying that Pell is a cause of this, but rather a symptom, as his conviction has been quashed unanimously and the man should be left alone. The media is a disgrace, like vultures post release. I do understand the interest prior, but once released, he should be treated like anyone else.

I'll ask you again: How do you as the accused defend yourself from allegations thirty years ago? It's a denial of natural justice - sorry but if you waited too long to make your allegations public then you waited too long.

So we should not prosecute NAZI war criminals, the Pol Pot murderers?

There needs to be a statute of limitations, end-of-story. How do you defend yourself against allegations from twenty or thirty years ago?

I very much disagree - most genuine victims don't come forward until 20-30 years afterwards.

I'll ask you again: How do you as the accused defend yourself from allegations thirty years ago? It's a denial of natural justice - sorry but if you waited too long to make your allegations public then you waited too long.

Why is this any different to anything else, like murder?

So a person committing a murder 20 to 30 years ago should be let off?

So a person committing a sex act against a child 20 to 30 years ago should be let off?

Get real. Ok you are supporting Pell, but don't change the system to support the person. Victims of crime deserve an opportunity to raise an allegation without fear.

Again, put yourself in the shoes of someone who is trying to defend themselves from an allegation from 30 or 40 years ago. How do you do that? Where do you even start if you can't recall the exact circumstances of your supposed offense?

You might have had a brief sexual relationship with someone from decades ago that didn't work out or that wasn't really significant in your mind - then suddenly the police want to interview you about a night from thirty years ago like what happened to John Jarrett a few years ago. How do you get witnesses if you can't even remember the specific night or who that person even was?

John Jarrett was extremely lucky that there were holes in his accuser's story that came out during the trial otherwise he'd probably be in jail; he really had no hope of defending himself against that allegation because he couldn't even remember the night that he had supposed to have raped the accuser. What if he was in jail right now simply because he couldn't remember the incident and couldn't mount a proper defense?

There really needs to be a statute of limitations on things like sexual assault for this exact reason: The accused can't be expected to mount a proper defense if there's been decades passed since the supposed incident: It's a denial of natural justice particularly when it's your word against an accuser - in Pell's case the accuser was considered very credible despite the fact that he got things wrong like the set-out of the Cathedral and the colour of the wine.

I'm sorry but if you sit on something for decades for whatever reason then you are leaving it too late.

So we should not prosecute NAZI war criminals, the Pol Pot murderers?

Nowhere did I say this.

You should be pleased, as the judicial system worked for Pell. The system eventually worked for him. The High Court worked.

Most people don't have the money or resources to take their cases to the High Court. If Pell had just been some nobody then chances he he would still be locked up serving the rest of his six year sentence out with people still screaming "rot in hell" and there would be no avenues of appeal left to him.

If the High Court hadn't overturned the conviction he'd still be considered guilty - wouldn't he.

There needs to be a statute of limitations, end-of-story. How do you defend yourself against allegations from twenty or thirty years ago?

I very much disagree - most genuine victims don't come forward until 20-30 years afterwards.

I'll ask you again: How do you as the accused defend yourself from allegations thirty years ago? It's a denial of natural justice - sorry but if you waited too long to make your allegations public then you waited too long.

Why is this any different to anything else, like murder?

So a person committing a murder 20 to 30 years ago should be let off?

So a person committing a sex act against a child 20 to 30 years ago should be let off?

Get real. Ok you are supporting Pell, but don't change the system to support the person. Victims of crime deserve an opportunity to raise an allegation without fear.

Again, put yourself in the shoes of someone who is trying to defend themselves from an allegation from 30 or 40 years ago. How do you do that? Where do you even start if you can't recall the exact circumstances of your supposed offense?

You might have had a brief sexual relationship with someone from decades ago that didn't work out or that wasn't really significant in your mind - then suddenly the police want to interview you about a night from thirty years ago like what happened to John Jarrett a few years ago. How do you get witnesses if you can't even remember the specific night or who that person even was?

John Jarrett was extremely lucky that there were holes in his accuser's story that came out during the trial otherwise he'd probably be in jail; he really had no hope of defending himself against that allegation because he couldn't even remember the night that he had supposed to have raped the accuser. What if he was in jail right now simply because he couldn't remember the incident and couldn't mount a proper defense?

There really needs to be a statute of limitations on things like sexual assault for this exact reason: The accused can't be expected to mount a proper defense if there's been decades passed since the supposed incident: It's a denial of natural justice particularly when it's your word against an accuser - in Pell's case the accuser was considered very credible despite the fact that he got things wrong like the set-out of the Cathedral and the colour of the wine.

I'm sorry but if you sit on something for decades for whatever reason then you are leaving it too late.

So we should not prosecute NAZI war criminals, the Pol Pot murderers?

Nowhere did I say this.

Seriously you need to stop suggesting the system needs to be changed to suit pedos.

The fact is Pell, went through, quite rightly the judicial system.

He was initially found guilty. The appeal court 2-1 found the initial finding was correct. Then the unanimously the full bench found Pell was erroneously found guilty and quashed his conviction. The system worked for Pell.

ULTIMATELY the system worked. Yes Pell went through hell. So did the complainant.

So Pell was one case.

Are you suggesting that a person should not raise a complaint of RAPE 30 years later because some one is older?

I can understand your passionate support for Pell. I can understand how you feel vindicated. But I do not understand your belief that the judicial system should be changed because of what Pell went through.  

Do not defend the rights of the people of being accused. Defend the rights of people that believe that have been done wrong. The judicial system will sort it out. Yes it is at a cost.

Can you answer this? Do you rather that perpetrators never be accused of crime because of an arbitrary age of the crime?

Is this a society you want to live in where the guilty can hide behind the statute of limitations? It would make me sick knowing that Pedos can hide because an 8 year old, finally has a voice at 38 to raise the issue.

Your support for Pell is understandable and the other aspects of the case is understandable, but to say that because people are old should never be held to account for their actions as a younger, makes me sick.

As far as I am concerned, Pell is innocent.

But shine a light on those cowards.

So for example are you unhappy that the Pedos at Puffing Billy were held to account?

There needs to be a statute of limitations, end-of-story. How do you defend yourself against allegations from twenty or thirty years ago?

I very much disagree - most genuine victims don't come forward until 20-30 years afterwards.

I'll ask you again: How do you as the accused defend yourself from allegations thirty years ago? It's a denial of natural justice - sorry but if you waited too long to make your allegations public then you waited too long.

Why is this any different to anything else, like murder?

So a person committing a murder 20 to 30 years ago should be let off?

So a person committing a sex act against a child 20 to 30 years ago should be let off?

Get real. Ok you are supporting Pell, but don't change the system to support the person. Victims of crime deserve an opportunity to raise an allegation without fear.

Again, put yourself in the shoes of someone who is trying to defend themselves from an allegation from 30 or 40 years ago. How do you do that? Where do you even start if you can't recall the exact circumstances of your supposed offense?

You might have had a brief sexual relationship with someone from decades ago that didn't work out or that wasn't really significant in your mind - then suddenly the police want to interview you about a night from thirty years ago like what happened to John Jarrett a few years ago. How do you get witnesses if you can't even remember the specific night or who that person even was?

John Jarrett was extremely lucky that there were holes in his accuser's story that came out during the trial otherwise he'd probably be in jail; he really had no hope of defending himself against that allegation because he couldn't even remember the night that he had supposed to have raped the accuser. What if he was in jail right now simply because he couldn't remember the incident and couldn't mount a proper defense?

There really needs to be a statute of limitations on things like sexual assault for this exact reason: The accused can't be expected to mount a proper defense if there's been decades passed since the supposed incident: It's a denial of natural justice particularly when it's your word against an accuser - in Pell's case the accuser was considered very credible despite the fact that he got things wrong like the set-out of the Cathedral and the colour of the wine.

I'm sorry but if you sit on something for decades for whatever reason then you are leaving it too late.

So we should not prosecute NAZI war criminals, the Pol Pot murderers?

Nowhere did I say this.

Seriously you need to stop suggesting the system needs to be changed to suit pedos.

The fact is Pell, went through, quite rightly the judicial system.

He was initially found guilty. The appeal court 2-1 found the initial finding was correct. Then the unanimously the full bench found Pell was erroneously found guilty and quashed his conviction. The system worked for Pell.

ULTIMATELY the system worked. Yes Pell went through hell. So did the complainant.

So Pell was one case.

Are you suggesting that a person should not raise a complaint of RAPE 30 years later because some one is older?

I can understand your passionate support for Pell. I can understand how you feel vindicated. But I do not understand your belief that the judicial system should be changed because of what Pell went through.  

Do not defend the rights of the people of being accused. Defend the rights of people that believe that have been done wrong. The judicial system will sort it out. Yes it is at a cost.

Can you answer this? Do you rather that perpetrators never be accused of crime because of an arbitrary age of the crime?

Is this a society you want to live in where the guilty can hide behind the statute of limitations? It would make me sick knowing that Pedos can hide because an 8 year old, finally has a voice at 38 to raise the issue.

Your support for Pell is understandable and the other aspects of the case is understandable, but to say that because people are old should never be held to account for their actions as a young person, makes me uncomfortable. It demonstrates to me a belief that the whole juridical system is flawed. If that is the case open the gaols up, let al the prisoners out, as they are all innocent.

As far as I am concerned, Pell is innocent.

But shine a light on those cowards.

So for example, are you unhappy that the Pedos at Puffing Billy were held to account?

Something needs to be remembered amongst all of this discussion.

Nobody has said that Pell didn't do it. Nobody has declared him innocent. The High Court said that the prosecution did not have enough evidence to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. . . . that and no more.

Similarly, nobody has said that the accuser was lying.

There remains reasonable doubt about both Pell's guilt or innocence, and he has rightly been given the benefit of that doubt.

I wanted the High Court to throw out the appeal simply because Pell is, as John Silvester wrote, "an arrogant prick with all the empathy of a polar bear stalking a seal pup." However, leaving aside my obvious bias against the man, I thought that the High Court appeal would probably succeed, and I can appreciate the decision that Their Honours handed down.

Very well said Valvegear. I am no fan of the man either but I always thought that the case was weak to the point where I wondered why the DPP agreed to run it in the first place.

Seriously you need to stop suggesting the system needs to be changed to suit pedos.

Did you not read a thing that I wrote in my previous post? I spoke almost exclusively about the John Jarrett case and the access of the accused to natural justice and here you are (along with others on this board) accusing me STILL of supporting pedophilia because of my insistence on giving anyone who is accused access to natural justice and the proper right of defense.

I'm willing to bet as a human being that you've had awkward sexual encounters in your past - sometimes you have sex and you regret it, especially when you're young. Supposing someone does a John Jarrett on you and says twenty years (or longer) afterwards that - complete news to you - you raped them - what's your defense? How do you even start to mount a defense against that kind of allegation? The passing of decades denies you access to all sorts of things like potential counter-witnesses and other evidence that supports your case - and it relies on you being able to properly recall the incident in detail from decades before so that you mount a proper defense in a court of law. You're already at a disadvantage because of that.

At the moment there's too much weight put on the absolute concrete truth of statements about events that people are recalling from decades earlier - your mind makes mistakes all the time, it inserts contextual things into memories that didn't happen (that's a scientific fact) and the memories are influenced by what's happened to you since the memory formed.

That's basically what the High Court said about the Pell conviction - there was not enough attention given to the possibility that it simply didn't happen and the jury believed the whole testimony from one man whose memory of those events two decades earlier wasn't entirely accurate. The witness got all sorts of things wrong with his recollection that were completely ignored in favor of "let's give him the benefit of the doubt and get that pedo b@stard". It became a witch-hunt where the primary principle of reasonable doubt went out the window.

If you really believe in the complete infallibility of witness statements from decades earlier then just pray that someone doesn't come out of your deep dark past and say "you raped me" because given what happened to Pell I'd say that it's likely anyone could be convicted of anything provided the accuser is credible enough and their story plausible.

So for example, are you unhappy that the Pedos at Puffing Billy were held to account?

That is a completely different scenario - there was lots of corroborating witnesses and lots of evidence, police investigations etc about what was going on. And let's not forget that some of the persons involved in that were already well known to the police as sex offenders (Robert Whitehead in particular, his offending went back to the sixties for God's sake - didn't anyone there know about his background?) and should never have been allowed into those positions of trust with children to begin with.

It wasn't just one man's recollection of one event from two decades ago.

Are you suggesting that a person should not raise a complaint of RAPE 30 years later because some one is older?

What if someone did that to you as I just discussed above? What if the only evidence was your word against theirs - how do you mount a reasonable defense if you don't have access to witnesses and evidence because of that passage of decades?