Pell Pot pedophile verdict and the jury system

13»

Comments

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Huia wrote: »
    GeeD I thought the accused could opt for a judge only trial.

    I need to check, but as I understand it the under the emergency powers currently in NZ there may only be trials without a jury at the moment. If I have that right I find it worrying.

    It's not as simple as that here (is anything?). If both consent, then there will be a judge-only trial. If the accused does not consent, the judge may still order one. That would involve a hearing of course.
  • Interesting. There’s a constitutional right in Canada to a jury trial for any offence with a maximum penalty of 5 years or more, so a judge can’t force a judge-alone trial for a serious offence.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    There's a constitutional right here as well, but my recollection is that the particular way it is worded means that it's practical significance is a bit limited.
  • @NOprophet_NØprofit Here is an article containing Witness J's response to the High Court's decision. He is a man of great integrity, trying to get on with his life.

    I respectfully suggest you do the same, and look to support and encourage victims, rather than do an emotional version of the cartoon tassie devil, hitting out at whatever target presents itself. I say this as one emotional cartoon tassie devil to another.

    I recall from past discussions that someone close to you has been a victim of a terrible crime. I think I'm right there. It is no surprise that this outcome brings up very strong feelings for you.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I can't tell you how many - indeed if any -
    orfeo wrote: »
    There's a constitutional right here as well, but my recollection is that the particular way it is worded means that it's practical significance is a bit limited.

    It's covered by s.80 of the Constitution which deals with trials on indictment for an offence against any law of the Commonwealth. I don't know how many such trials there are each year, probably only a small proportion of all criminal cases in superior courts I'd imagine. I don't remember any case law on the subject. Of course, neither the Pell trial nor the Warwick trial to which I referred were for offences against Commonwealth law.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    I remembered the indictment bit. I hadn't remembered that it's Commonwealth law only, and you're absolutely right, that limits it hugely. But on top of that you actually have to have something say when an indictment is needed.

    So yeah, outcome is our constitutional right to trial by jury isn't all that useful in practice.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And picking up on your second sentence, summary trials need not be limited to hearings before magistrates. Those in the Land and Environment Court are a good example. So it would be easy to make a Commonwealth offence triable summarily before a judge. Picking the court might need some negotiations with the States though.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ... But that's double speak. It's the sort of shit that people say when they want to tell victims to feel differently than they do in such situations. The effect of such a decision to tell victims that they are liars. Ask one. You see, people who have been forced to have sex, well they remember it. And a court doing this, well, WTF. It's the sort of thing that tells others to not bother reporting. ....
    Even at its highest and best, the law isn't about assuaging those who feel they are victims. It's about attempting to determining a justice that is as far as possible objective - not subjective.

    Whether you take the view that assuaging the feelings of victims should prevail over objective justice or not is a matter you may have an opinion about, but others will be equally entitled to disagree with you.

    To put this a different way, most of us when we cry 'I demand justice' probably mean 'I want justice skewed in my own favour'.

  • Years ago a friend was on the jury for a nasty rape case. Sometime afterwards he said part of the unpleasantness lay in the fact that he felt it was clear that the accused was a rapist, but it wasn't clear if that particular incident was rape.

    As a young man I wanted to be called for jury duty. Now I'm very glad I haven't been.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Yes, when I was younger I was keen to serve too. I have been called twice since I was raped, Both times I asked to be excused as I was not sure I could make a fair decision in a rape case, and all accused are entitled to a fair trial. Both times I was excused. Now I will not be called again due to my age.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    https://play.stuff.co.nz/details/_6148816596001

    should be worth waiting for ...
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    From that short clip, he seems to have learnt from Prince Andrew's disaster - what to say and to whom give an interview.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    I would expect nothing less Gee D as he has probably been advised by expensive good lawyers.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Perhaps, but I rather suspect that the advice came from within the Catholic Church here. It's a PR exercise, not a legal one.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    That makes sense.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    Well, the Report of the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse has been tabled in a form that includes the findings about Pell, now that his criminal trial has been finalised.

    The Guardian's report of it contains this quote:
    “We are satisfied that in 1973 Father Pell turned his mind to the prudence of Ridsdale taking boys on overnight camps”.

    “The most likely reason for this, as Cardinal Pell acknowledged, was the possibility that if priests were one-on-one with a child then they could sexually abuse a child or at least provoke gossip about such a prospect. By this time, child sexual abuse was on his radar, in relation to not only Monsignor Day but also Ridsdale. We are also satisfied that by 1973 Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy but that he also had considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it.”

    Gerald Ridsdale is a notorious offender who abused at least 130 children in his care between the 1960's and 1980's. Pell and he shared a house in the 1970's.

    Regardless of his personal culpability as an accused abuser of children, Pell is an utter bastard [redacted]. His actions in covering up child sexual abuse by priests are reprehensible and irresponsible. Someone grab his passport.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    He's not a criminal unless you can identify the law he's broken. Was there a legal requirement in 1973 to prevent sexual abuse happening? I highly doubt it.

    His moral culpability is an entirely different question. But stop throwing around the word 'criminal' without a proper legal process.

    And we don't seize passports on the basis of moral dislike.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    There's an offence that bishop in SA was charged with - concealing child abuse? That was what I had in mind.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    There's an offence that bishop in SA was charged with - concealing child abuse? That was what I had in mind.

    Yes. And my question for some time has been why the hell Pell wasn't charged with that instead of going for the charge of him being guilty himself of abuse.

    Did they not think they had enough evidence for it? Maybe this new report will change that. Maybe not. Half the problem with the trial that did go ahead is that people treated it as some kind of proxy for Pell's handling of abuse within the church.

    I've frankly got no problem if there's a case against him on that basis. But I would quite like to see it handled in a court setting, properly, instead of more trial by media.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    bloody oath. Charge the bastard.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    Whatever he personally did (or didn't) it was all around him and he was responsible organisationally for the whole lot of them getting away with it

    quote:

    In 1974 Cardinal Pell was informed by a schoolboy about abuse being carried out by a Brother Edward "Ted" Dowlan, the commission found.
    The boy said to Cardinal Pell: "We’ve got to do something about what's going on at St Pat's."
    Father Pell responded: "Yes, what do you mean?" And the boy replied: "Brother Dowlan is touching little boys."
    The commission found Cardinal Pell said words to the effect of, "Don’t be ridiculous," and walked away.
  • @Simon Toad - we can't call people criminals unless they're actual criminals. Because, ironically, that might and up in court and no one wants that.

    I'm redacting your post amd telling you plainly to moderate your language.

    Doc Tor
    Hell Host
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    There's an offence that bishop in SA was charged with - concealing child abuse? That was what I had in mind.

    Yes. And my question for some time has been why the hell Pell wasn't charged with that instead of going for the charge of him being guilty himself of abuse.

    Did they not think they had enough evidence for it? Maybe this new report will change that. Maybe not. Half the problem with the trial that did go ahead is that people treated it as some kind of proxy for Pell's handling of abuse within the church.

    I've frankly got no problem if there's a case against him on that basis. But I would quite like to see it handled in a court setting, properly, instead of more trial by media.

    I agree in principle, though I would want to check that "concealing child abuse" was an offence at the relevant times. IANAL but my understanding is that a person cannot be charged for something that was not an offence at the time of the alleged offence. On the other hand, I'm almost certain that "sexual assault" and/or "sex with a minor" have been offences for many years.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    You are basically right. Retrospectivity is a very awkward and nasty thing when it comes to criminal law (and indeed, one of the big problems just in popular consciousness is the tendency to judge past behaviour by present standards).

    However, there is already precedent for a church leader being charged over concealment. Charged. I seem to remember that conviction was overturned on appeal.

    But I don't know the details of the offence on the books, and whether it's possible to fit these new findings relating to Pell into that offence. I just hope that question is being examined by some very boring prosecutor with zero interest in the limelight.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Tukai wrote: »
    I agree in principle, though I would want to check that "concealing child abuse" was an offence at the relevant times. IANAL but my understanding is that a person cannot be charged for something that was not an offence at the time of the alleged offence. On the other hand, I'm almost certain that "sexual assault" and/or "sex with a minor" have been offences for many years.

    It may even turn on such arcane detail of the nature of any offence - my very vague recollection is that it was then an offence (in NSW, no idea about Victoria) to conceal knowledge of the commission of a felony but not a misdemeanour. There was almost certainly no offence as precise as concealing the commission of child sexual abuse. Then you need to look at what Pell in fact knew - did he know of any particular offences or just of the general "knowledge" that Ridsdale was abusing children.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    (Beg pardon, but for what does "IANAL" stand? Thank you!)
  • IANAL stands for ‘I am not a lawyer’.
  • PS. So Tukai is not a lawyer, and neither am I. For information, @Gee D is a lawyer and @Orfeo is a legislative drafter.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And Simon Toad's wife, who was on the old ship, not sure about the new one, is a lawyer. Quite a few others around the globe are as well, starting with Nick Tamen.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    And there are some who are not now practising lawyers, but still are lawyers :wink:
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    The clever ones!
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    I've got a degree, but haven't practiced since 2000. Puppycat never joined the new ship. Dunno why. All I know is that if I pester her about something, she doesn't tend to do it. :smiley:
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    For a long time I got to deny being a lawyer. I just had a law degree. Then I went through all the admission ceremony stuff in the ACT Supreme Court and thought well, I've buggered that up, now I'm an actual lawyer. Just a really weird kind.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Not sure about the weird, but certainly unusual. Is there a smaller grouping that you can think of?
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    IANAL stands for ‘I am not a lawyer’.
    Thank you for that, and for the explication of who is and is not licensed to practice law in our respective countries.


  • Gee D wrote: »
    The clever ones!

    Thank you!
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    The clever ones!

    Thank you!

    Of course, I'm now in that category also.
  • Galilit wrote: »
    Whatever he personally did (or didn't) it was all around him and he was responsible organisationally for the whole lot of them getting away with it

    quote:

    In 1974 Cardinal Pell was informed by a schoolboy about abuse being carried out by a Brother Edward "Ted" Dowlan, the commission found.
    The boy said to Cardinal Pell: "We’ve got to do something about what's going on at St Pat's."
    Father Pell responded: "Yes, what do you mean?" And the boy replied: "Brother Dowlan is touching little boys."
    The commission found Cardinal Pell said words to the effect of, "Don’t be ridiculous," and walked away.

    Not believing a statement of that kind is probably not a criminal offence. Similarly, the report extract quoted earlier suggests Pell was worried about gossip rather than - believed a man was having sex with children and wanted to prevent anything being done about it.

    I’d have thought the ‘concealment’ offence would need to be something like a charge of being an “accessory after the fact” to stick in court.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I think there's a lot in both your comments.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And as far as accessory after, knowledge of a particular offence, not just general reputation.
This discussion has been closed.