Shame there has been a trial and he was found guilty then eh?
1 Like
Well first one resulted in a mistrial
I sure am. I would never put my life in the hands of a jury. Ever. Would rather someone who knows the law pass down a decision. His lawyers should have went with a judge alone trial.
Hey I am not religious in the slightest. I just think it’s becoming more and more obvious media influence decisions of the jury. And I do not think he had a fair trial.
I have read through a lot of the evidence. Listened to a friend that has followed the trial closely and parts of the evidence are farcical. I find it hard to believe he was found guilty and I find it hard that a jury could find him guilty. Sorry. I know some hate priests and want to see them burn in hell or whatever. But I just find it very difficult to believe this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t if the woman with Pell going into court today was his sister or not (she definitely has been at the court hearings), but if it was would you criticize her for being by her brother’s side in good times and bad? She doesn’t have to agree on anything about him, just be the shoulder he would need regardless of his guilt.
Tony Abbott isn’t related to him. This is all about power and corruption and Tony Abbott is a twat. He has very poor judgement.
1 Like
Comments like mine? Really? Jury trials have been happening for god knows how long and only now they’re an issue? 12 people, including a pastor gave the guilty verdict.
Even if a judge had precided over this case and found him guilty, the same people would still be proclaiming his innocence.
Spare me the bullshit.
He has had numerous accusations against him over the years, which shows a very clear pattern.
He was not innocent.
1 Like
Should it ever come to that, would you get a choice?
1 Like
Not in Victoria, no such thing as a judge only trial here. A plea of not guilty gets you a jury in the County and Supreme Courts.
1 Like
Yes you do have a choice. You can elect to have a judge alone trial.
Now they are an issue? They have always been an issue. Ever since ‘witches’ were burnt at the stake. Come on juries have always harbored feelings and come with preconceived judgments. If you can’t see it you are completely naive. You will get some good jury members I know that. But there will always be the ones who do not understand the law. The greatest test of beyond a reasonable doubt. How did it pass that test? Be real!
I’m sorry its not bullshit at all. I am not here stating his innocence I am saying that he did not have a fair trial.
All allegations that were not even proceeded with because they did not have enough evidence. So I guess that shows that they don’t show a very clear pattern do they.
I am pretty sure there is considering Maggie Kirkpatrick had one a few years ago or have I got that mistaken? I know in SA you can elect to have a judge alone trial. Perhaps she had a jury and the jury found her guilty and it was the judge that over turned it saying there was not enough evidence.
If there isn’t a chance for a judge alone its time for a reform in Victoria. Juries get it wrong way too often.
So you’re saying the preciding judge fell asleep? There is still a Judge in the trial. None of us was in the trial so saying he didn’t have a fair trial is ridiculous.
What are you on about? I did not say the judge fell asleep and in fact I don’t know how you have come to the conclusion. He did not have a fair trial because the media painted on the front page that he was guilty. If that is not going to influence someones mind I don’t know what is. The judges did their best to create the suppression order but the damage was already done. The forks were up and they were ready to burn him
That was on appeal following her being found guilty in the Magistrates’ Court.
1 Like
There we go. Guess it proves that juries get it wrong. Another jury that decided because she was famous she had to be guilty?
There’s no jury in the Magistrates’ Court, so no jury got anything wrong in that case.
That is what I initially thought. She appealed, gave evidence and was found not guilty. So her case wasn’t serious enough to go to the County Court? Is that right?
So is it that you cannot elect to have a judge alone trial in the County Court in Victoria?
Correct. It’s depends on the charges and penalties available. Usually an indictable offence would go straight to the county court after a committal, but some lower level offences can be heard by magistrate only.
No juries in appellate courts.
I definitely think there needs to be a reform in Victoria then. A bit ridiculous that you are forced to put your life in the hands of complete strangers with little understanding of the law, elements and evidences that needs to be provided to prove guilt.
i disagree just because you dont belive in jurries dont meant that victoria doesnt need a reform far from it and so such as such is silly
Yep, not perfect, but judges do direct juries in how to interpret evidience, what not to included, their excused from court for certain discussions.
Jon Faine had a good editorial on law reform recently.
1 Like
I think you might need to reread what you said as it contradicts itself. But yes it does need reform if parts of the country have done it successfully and there are many mistrials and wrongful convictions here in Victoria a change is needed. And I’m not just talking about innocent people being convicted but guilty people being found innocent.
agree to disagree and move on