I don’t see chasing someone really essential. Sorry disagree. It is just not painting a good example. Especially when the government is asking people not to travel over Easter. Not needed and we should have our media setting an example.
4 Likes
It was a joke to begin with but In actual fact they shouldn’t be travelling from Victoria to NSW unless it’s essential. Especially since the government just asked people not to travel this weekend
2 Likes
Agree to disagree. Cause you won’t change my mind on this one. Keen to hear other views though.
Yep agree to disagree. The continual stalking of the media was one of the reasons the Victorian justice system failed. Now doing this. They never learn
Why are you sure the Victorian justice system failed, but not the High Court?
(The overturn was on a technicality, and it seems it could have gone the other way.)
Because the high court is the over riding authority in the Australian legal system. They make the laws. If they say so they are right. Simple.
I don’t think they make laws. The parliament legislates. I think they interpret law and its application.
3 Likes
agree to disagree . i know catherine king also agrees with me on this . it was the high court that failed not victoria
1 Like
Typical of commercial networks these days.
2 Likes
That seems like a very simplistic view indeed, but of course the supremacy of the HC is legal fact.
I just think it’s unfair to blame the Victorian judicial system when this was such a technical decision, where the HC said the trial court & appeals court should’ve overruled the jury by saying there is reasonable doubt because the prosecution didn’t go full-on at the defendant’s witnesses, despite the compelling evidence of the victim.
It’s a tough thing to expect all lower courts to successfully guess what the HC may decide in the future.
6 Likes
Common law…
Statutory law (government) always overides common law. But the two work together. Common law is cases law made by higher courts that lower courts must follow. 7 judges of the High court said the Victorian justice system got it wrong and failed. It failed.
I think some need to do some research on how the legal system works and what the test is in a trial. Simple thing is the Victorian legal system failed because of the beyond a reasonable doubt test.
Whether or not it’s the result you wanted and what survivors of sexual abuse needed is different. There is a reason this is the test and the high court absolutely smashed the Victorian legal system for not looking at all evidence and identifying the doubt. They failed.
of course a labor state mp disagrees it’s her legal system that failed.
Just watched the 7 report. Social distancing was maintained.
4 Likes
This is discussion for another thread but I think it’s pretty clear - no matter your view on this - that the legal wrangling over the principle suggests ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is not as simple as you imply.
4 Likes
It’s not. Your right and that is why the high court was clearly needed in this case.
Catherine King is a Federal MP and even if she was a state MP, there’s a separation of powers re the courts. Back to the Bolt comments with you!
1 Like
I can not stand bolt. But I have huge respect for our legal system and there is a lot people do not know. That is my point through this whole trial. I am angry that victims of child abuse had to suffer this decision from the high court. Now feeling they will not be listened to by the highest court of Australia. It should have been dealt with properly from Victoria.
1 Like
Then we must question if the laws are right…?
Beyond a reasonable doubt? Whether that is right? I would say that’s the way it should be. A prosecutor should be able to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus of that proof should be on them. I am not saying George pell is innocent, but if you didn’t have that threshold you could have a lot of innocent people going to jail.
1 Like
… not words you would hear too often in Australia. This case or otherwise.
2 Likes