Probably because most don’t understand it. I studied law recently so I am quite passionate about it and have to have respect for it.
1 Like
I respect the design, history & intent of the legal system but I don’t ignore its imperfections.
News Corp and the shock jocks have been fuelling contempt for the courts for as long as I can remember, sensationalising, reporting ‘light sentences’ out of context (not reporting magistrates’ reasons even when clearly stated in their judgement), and of course Bolt & his fellow travellers were rubbishing the Pell conviction, even after the appeals court had upheld it.
It’s just bizarre seeing some of them (like Henderson, Divine, & Bolt) now suddenly defending the HC & insisting we must respect court decisions, when only days ago they were saying the exact opposite. They have no shame for their hypocrisy.
All that being said, the legal system is predicated on those in power (police, prosecutors, magistrates, judges) being honest & doing their best to suppress their biases, but the system is made up of & administered by imperfect humans so there will mistakes made, and even deliberate miscarriages of justice (whether from corruption, bribery, extortion), but hopefully not often.
Another issue is the financial burden to fight your case, whether as a plaintiff or defendant; it’s easy for the government, large corporations & organisations which don’t pay tax like the churches, yet ordinary people are at a great disadvantage (including victims who have not been believed by police, etc.).
Unlike the USA, Australia doesn’t even guarantee defendants access to a lawyer to defend them. The US system is flawed (a public defender is unlikely to be anywhere near as skilled, let alone well-resourced as a rich person’s lawyer), but Australia is worse with the pathetically low level of Legal Aid funding meaning so many accused are at risk of not getting a fair trial.
So let’s keep some perspective here; the system is not perfect.
2 Likes
Definitely not. And each state is different which is a huge flaw in the legal system. Massive changes are needed. But I don’t think it was the High Court that got it wrong here. Especially when you see a 0-7 majority. Essentially the Victorian Justice System was too scared to rule against a jury verdict. The Victorian Legal System is one of only a few that don’t offer a judge alone option (which is essential in cases like these).
I have my concerns about the move away from juries being the decider of fact with appeals only being about other matters (e.g. a magistrate making an error directing the jury, or evidence that should’ve been ruled inadmissible or vice versa).
Isn’t this change in the role of appeals courts (including the High Court) relatively new?
Trials being decided by a group of your peers has been a fundamental principle since Magna Carta, and for good reason. Of course juries aren’t perfect either, but the move away from jury trials brings further risk to the public’s trust of verdicts & the entire legal system.
We don’t want the system to devolve to being similar to the rulers deciding over the ruled, or even to have such an appearance (the gowns & wigs, while being interesting historical throwbacks unfortunately feed this appearance of disconnect between the legal system and the public).
2 Likes
It has. And I am not suggesting abolishing juries. I just think people are swayed too heavily by media and in particular social media. What is the harm of following South Australia and NSW and I think recently WA in allowing judge alone trials? They have been fundamentally important especially in child sex abuse cases where the victim doesn’t need to get in front a jury to speak of the abuse. It is obviously something that is discussed by both the prosecution and defense and if the other objects they are allowed to say why and a judge can decide.
The money and the pain that was suffered as a result of that trial could have been avoided.
I have a friend who attended most of the court appearances for the trial and she knew he was getting released. She had said before that he is a horrible man, deserves to be in jail but the evidence wasn’t there to convict him. This is why there was so much media waiting at the jail for him to leave.
1 Like
sorry but this sounds like turdall vs the justice system v.2 but this time its the victorian justice system lol
Jason it not just me that thinks it. Clearly the High Court of Australia has some reservations about the Victorian Legal System. Not just that every lawyer that was on Today, Sunrise and Studio 10 seemed to say the same thing that the High Court got it right and we have the reasonable doubt rule for a reason.
And this is not about George Pell. The man is scum. But you can’t let your emotions get in the way of what is the right or wrong verdict.
Look this has nothing to do with George Pell, but at one point people threw people in jail for just being gay. No proof needed. Back years ago people had trials because they thought they were witches. They didn’t need the evidence to prove any of these things. THAT is why we have the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold. Do we want to go back to that? Do we want to make the same mistakes?
1 Like
ok i get your pont and i do apoligse . and yes i do belive in what your saying having read some local stories here where i live iam finally see your point . i do belive like you that the victorian justice system is flawed and needs to be addressed quickly.
1 Like
its jus t sickens me that this creep is back on the street .and after reading the courier when they had the reactions from the survivours here in ballarat . it just shows how flawed the victorian system really is
2 Likes
It sickens me too. And hopefully he pays for not only the alleged abuse but the abuse he covered up over the years. When the Royal Commission comes out I expect some big things. He has done a lot wrong.
3 Likes
im so glad i changed my relgion last year when i did
1 Like
I am not a religious person myself. But I have not liked the response from the church.
4 Likes
you and me both
2 Likes
You keep saying this about a case that had an incredibly heavy suppression order on it
6 Likes
Yet everyone knew about it and had an opinion on it… wonder why that is? There is a reason why it had a huge suppression order on it and the media did not like that. My friend who is a journalist for the herald sun said how this case sold stories and generated clicks before the suppression order. Hence it was a heavily publicised case. it didn’t always have that suppression order and you know that. Not to mention the media broke the suppression order, subsequently charged and you could still view news overseas…
1 Like
The legal system will lose a lot of respect out of this. The same way the parole system lost all respect after Jill Meagher and had to be rewritten.
With someone like Pell walking the streets, it will be a wakeup call that people cant assume the system is in touch with basic community expectations. and there will be a new awareness of how high the high courts threshold of “beyond reasonable doubt” is.
How can any politician or lawyer expect a victim to ever come forward and hold perpetrators to account when the legal system is so obviously geared against them?
Worse when you remember the systemic racism that’s putting Aboriginal people in jail for minor crimes
1 Like
Defamation lawyers should get ready for this one:
1 Like
Typical
1 Like
Yuck! Will Bolt be fawning over Pell. Making him a martyr.
2 Likes