News George Pell convicted of child sex offences - one of the happiest day of my life!

[ms spock]

I never thought that they would get George Pell! I grew up Catholic so I heard what was said.

Dead Link Removed

George Pell has been convicted of historic child sex offences - I have to say it is/was one of the happiest day of my life!

Many elderly Catholic women have been asking me what was going on and what was happening, and why we didn't know about it. They have been interesting conversations.

I have been celebrating since it happened (has not been reported in the media in Australia as there is a gag order) but you can google it to access all the details. It has been widely reported around the world.

 

[bellbird]

??? yeah!!!

 

[Abstract]

??? yeah!!!

Oh amazing. Thank you for sharing. Love it. Very clever. Gives me a little faith in humanity.

one of the happiest day of my life!

yay

 

[void]

@Living in the 70s

When they are done with Pell, in your view, what should be done next?

 

[blackemerald1]

I really don't want to rain on your parade @Living in the 70s - but the only information I can find regarding this so called conviction is via the same news media website regurgitating the same thing over and over but in different flavours.

There are gag orders for very serious reasons and I'm not sure I believe any of the media reports so far. He is facing ongoing prosecution and is alleged to be appealing anyway.. so nothing is finalised. There is a long, long way to go.

People can get all upset with gag orders but they preserve a fundamental right in our legal system... innocent till proven guilty.

We can think and suspect all we like... but the evidence, the jury and the Court must be afforded the clarity of purpose...far, far away from the 'Court of public opinion'.

I'm skeptical of any journo., who considers his legal position through lawyers both in Australia and overseas and then proceeds to basically ignore a gag order. That is contempt of Court.

That journalist is also placing the other matters that the Cardinal is also facing in jeopardy bc the gag Order is there to prevent any perceived loss of a fair trial.

What right minded person would want a headline albeit an online headline... so badly they would risk the rights of the victims to have their voices heard?

I don't even think it is wise to report it or re-report it here till it is all a done deal.

I appreciate how fervently you want justice to be served but let's first allow the truth to be heard. :)

 

[ms spock]

I respectfully disagree. I actually held off for awhile before starting this thread @blackemerald1. This is not a news site, so the gag order doesn't apply here.

George Pell has another trial pending, that is true, but he has been convicted.

George Pell is appealing, that is true, but at this time he has been convicted. There have been many other high profile rich, wealthy, white very, very well connected men that have had their cases discussed in the media as they were going through the courts. It is interesting that Pell would get a total blackout, (apparently going back to a 16th Century law) not given to so many other men going through the courts. That has been remarked upon.

If your logic is followed then no cases should be discussed in the media before people are found guilty, that can't happen or we would never know what is going on. People have a right to know in certain public interest cases, and I believe that this is one of those cases.

In Australia, I don't know if you are aware @blackemerald1 they are spending millions defending their child rapist priests. Pell was the one we all thought wouldn't go to trial ever, and he was also the one there was no chance of ever getting a conviction. He has been convicted.

And even if this is overturned on some legal technicality that the best millions of dollars of legal defence that money can purchase. He was, at one time, a man convicted of child sexual assault.

This is a truly watershed moment for Catholics in Australia, that I know that are following this. I have been Pell watching for many decades.

I did consider not having a thread on this forum for quite some days and then I thought wow the power that we can't even talk about it is, that is truly amazing, and that I, of all people, got sucked into that, wow I am not so far along as I thought.

 

[blackemerald1]

We are going to have to agree to disagree then. Here's why...

I actually held off for awhile before starting this thread

If you disagreed with the importance of the gag Court Order and the reasons why it may be important etc., why hold off at all?

Personally, I don't follow the lead of journalists from overseas news outlets but that's just me.

My need to know something that doesn't directly effect me isn't more important than other ppls rights.

another trial pending, that is true, but he has been convicted.

It is the impending trial that is now most important. Though he probably wants his appeal to proceed quickly too.

The gag Order is in place to protect the integrity of the very system that you are relying on find him guilty. If you want that system to work without interference... the gag Order works in your favour!

Why disparage a protection that the Judge clearly knew was needed and had every right to order. It is really important we protect the defendant's rights or in your haste to lap up the news and dance on his reputation you inadvertently contribute towards the very real possibility of him and every other perp out there (by way of legal precedent) being handed an easy way of muddying the water and appealing on the basis of unfair trail due to the what.. the media needing to report it??

Public interest will be best served by the legal process being allowed to continue without subverting Court Orders.

but at this time he has been convicted.

I have not disagreed with this.

It's what it means that is more important to me.

Conviction means nothing unless he faces consequences and that requires a sentencing and penalty phase. That's not happening bc he is appealing.

He has the right to appeal. He has applied to appeal and it has been granted... apparently. Now, the conviction means nothing until it is upheld or quashed.

It is interesting that Pell would get a total blackout, (apparently going back to a 16th Century law) not given to so many other men going through the courts. That has been remarked upon.

A lot of laws are based on 16th Century or even earlier Law... we rely on the Common Law. The Law has two origins, legislation and Common Law. It;s not important or meaningful. The inference that he's getting special treatment is simply untrue. Gag orders are used frequently for numerous reasons... eg. to protect the identity of child victims or even child offenders... but there are lots of occasions it is used.

f your logic is followed

No I didn't suggest that at all.

Discuss away.... however I don't agree with publishing against Orders of the Court or presume that a Judge who wants to make sure the system works correctly doesn't know what he is doing and I don't see the sense in pre empting the course of Justice. The public interest is not served by subverting any of that.

People have a right to know in certain public interest cases,

Yes.. public interest is important but it does not trump the rights of the accused or the rights of the victims or the legal processes that are to be used to determine who is guilty and what should be done with them.

they are spending millions defending their child rapist priests.

The Catholic church is spending billions on this... I guess that's for Catholics who are concerned to take up with their Church.

In any case all defendants in Australia are entitled to adequate and competent representation and inevitably that costs huge amounts of money.

Legal aid should not have to foot the bill... bc that is money coming from the coffers of the Australian Government and the taxpayer ie citizens of Australia.

If he and any other defendants do not get adequate representation then that is also grounds for appeal too! so. it is only right that everyone charged.. gets represented. There is nothing new with ppl spending lots of money to obtain the services of costly legal teams.

Pell was the one we all thought wouldn't go to trial ever, and he was also the one there was no chance of ever getting a conviction.

I think that might be a bit of personal speculation there... Pell was pretty well hidden from public view working for the Vatican and there was a lot of public speculation that he might not return to face the music.. but he did and of his own volition.

There is always a problem bringing to Justice such powerful men... just getting them charged etc., is a big deal. But I don't think the DPP would ever have proceeded with prosecution (bc that does cost the taxpayer millions too) - if there was too much doubt a conviction could not be obtained. Besides, there were several Directions Hearings and then Committal Hearings... so at each stage of the legal process the checks and balances were in place.

Nobody can guarantee a conviction but it doesn't serve the public interest to persue ppl where there is no realistic prospect of conviction either.

if this is overturned on some

If his conviction or anyone's conviction is quashed - regardless of why... he will never be remembered as the priest who was convicted... he will be remembered as the one that got away... so that's why I am bothering to tell you that the gag Order and any other protections he can be afforded should be respected.

I don't want a guilty man to walk on a technicality ever.

If the media stuff this up by not abiding by a gag Order and he walks away on a technicality deriving from that... will you feel that Justice was done? Do you think his victims will be pleased? Do you think the Public interest is served?

All I am suggesting is be patient, let the system do it's thing... respect his rights and when it is all done and dusted and he is in PRISON throw the party then. :)

 

[ms spock]

We will have to agree to disagree.

Most Australians don't get anything like adequate defence in court, Legal Aid funding has been cut substantially. Women fleeing violence get very little representation in the courts from Legal Aid and one barrister recently said to me it was because Legal Aid goes to the men who could get jail time.

There is no justice for those that don't have a lot of money, the system is broken with those with mental illness being warehoused in prisons.

Women fleeing from domestic violence have a high probability of ending up in jail - there is recent research about that.

Our Indigenous brothers and sisters are way overrepresented in jail for many minor offences, and in one case I met for not speaking English.

In my opinion George Pell is getting a media blackout by the judge not for justice or fairness of the system but as part of the intergenerational coverup of sexual abuse in Australia. You don't see it that way. I do see it that way.

There is a great underrepresentation of child rapist priests in our prison system and that is about the abuse of power and privilege of which the gag order is just another part of, on top of the Catholic churches spending of millions of dollars to defend them. You shouldn't be able to buy your way out of facing the consequences of your actions which is happening regularly. But there is no justice for those who don't have the money, so those who can't manage the money, they often miss out on justice.

There's plenty of child rapist priests that did't get a gag order, this is because of his power and prestige. This is because of his influence.

 

[Sideways]

public interest is important but it does not trump the rights of the accused

I flip flop on this issue about Pell & the gag order pretty much every time I think about it.

That said, hers in Australia a criminal conviction is:
1) considered guilt. Until Pell successfully appeals? He has been convicted, and considered guilty.
2) criminal convictions are a matter of public record.

If nothing else? The gag order ought to be lifted once all pending criminal trials have been concluded.

Pell’s right to appeal? Does not alter the significance of the conviction. Once convicted of an offence, it is not the case that the person has any entitlement to be considered innocent until appeals have been finalised. They are considered guilty, as a matter of public record, and simply entitled to pursue any appeal avenues if they want to.

Pretty much everything else you’ve written I agree with. I don’t think Pell could get a fair jury trial here in Australia, period. Either way, the jury is going to have strong ethical inclinations and prior knowledge (and considerable public debate) of the issue influencing those ethics.

But I don’t believe he should be entitled to a gag order until his appeal avenues have been exhausted. A gag order until his criminal trials have concluded? Maybe. But once convicted, the public is entitled to know, and entitled to consider him guilty.

ETA: give me 5 minutes and I’ll probably disagree with everything I’ve just written!!

 

[blackemerald1]

Oh once he's exhausted his appeals and all of his charges have been determined... the media can have him.

I never inferred or intended on saying he was innocent!! He may have a conviction quashed but I strongly agree that does not ever mean innocence..

I think if the prosecution cannot reach that bar then he will still be known as morally bankrupt.. by the ppl of Australia and possibly the Vatican will find it hard to justify returning him to his previous lorded position. Let's hope so.

The gag Order is not permanent. It's only in place to try to ensure the jury etc., do not become prejudiced about the first conviction whilst they hear and determine the next case against him. I can see exactly why the Judge is doing it. I wish it did not have to be so however it's the media that created this hyperstorm of public interest.

I watched as several hundred Australian and overseas journalists crowded the steps of Court everyday.. it was so bad the Police were required to hold them back so witnesses etc., attending the trial could get to the doors of the Court!! They were throwing questions that nobody in their right mind would answer... quite ridiculous and unnecessary.

I can understand why there may have been a few victims of crimes relating to religious instiutional abuse (not directly related to the trial present) in attendance bc they want their voices to be heard and not forgotten.. but the media
were shouting each other down and behaving like a shark feeding frenzy... So they have created this problem.

The Judge would be so severely criticised for not doing his job properly if he did not apply a gag Order.

As I have mentioned, what happens if he didn't and the defendant was successful on appeal on the grounds of unfairness or prejudice... I'm thinking of the victims here... not the public or the defendant!

Who wants to go through all that again? There are real human beings attending court and telling their stories and being mercilessly cross examined for days at a time. I know it is the usual Court process but it is excruciatingly difficult and painful for the victims! - Do we want them to go through another trial? No!! They deserve some mercy. And they would never be happy if after all of their patience and hard won victory.. it was quashed. There is no victory then.. for anyone! I meant the meaning of the conviction in the public view... the perception if he walks away from this on appeal - he will definitely be remembered as the one who got away... and no conviction and no penalty..

Whilst I think defendants rights must be upheld - perhaps I was not clear... I want the system to be beyond reproach so the conviction can stand against any appeal! If that means a gag order in the interim.. so be it.

The gag order ought to be lifted once all pending criminal trials have been concluded.

Agreed and I never suggested otherwise.

 

[Sideways]

but the media
were shouting each other down and behaving like a shark feeding frenzy... So they have created this problem.

It’s interesting because I personally didn’t really see this as an issue. It’s a media frenzy requiring a police presence when big names get charged with big crimes (Clive Palmer’s recent legal battles here in Qld come to mind). It’s a big public interest story - across the world - and I kind of feel like the frenzy is appropriate. The world needs to know these charges have been laid against a Cardinal. Every significant international media publisher should be ot there demanding to know what’s going on.

To me, the gag order is appropriate because the jury pool is coming to this trial with nearly a decade of very public debate about this issue arising from the Royal Commission, combined with the potent religious element (people are very often reeeally Catholic and “a Cardinal couldn’t possibly have....” or reeeeally anti-Catholic and “Every Catholic priest should be considered suspect...”).

The other thing is that I think that getting this through to a criminal trial? Is a win. Irrespective of outcome. You don’t need to be particularly suspicious of the system to believe that a conviction will ultimately be quashed no matter what, given time.

But here in Australia? We got a Cardinal to a criminal trial. Pedophiles being prolific among the clergy is a global issue. But no where else in the world have they ever achieved this - we’ve managed to get even a Cardinal to face trial. That’s not a small matter. Maybe we’re still a few decades away from everyone genuinely being equally subject to the rule of law. But getting a Cardinal to even stand trial? I think that’s a win.

I can definitely understand others don’t see it that way - that this will ultimately be proven to be a farce. Maybe so.

But as someone who will never see their abusive priest stand trial? I personally take this as a win. Getting a Cardinal to stand trial, to me, is a big achievement for the rule of law here in Australia. Conviction or not. And I think it’s great that the world’s media is making it known.

 

[blackemerald1]

The world needs to know these charges have been laid against a Cardinal. Every significant international media publisher should be ot there demanding to know what’s going on.

Knowing charges have been laid, and the Police made no secret of that.. is a far cry from mob behaviour outside a Court.

What about all of the witnesses that had to make their way past all of that stuff.. the people he offended against? Should they have to push and shove their way to get into the Court to then face giving their evidence and cross examination? No.. not in my book. It might make great television coverage but it doesn't do anything for the confidence of the witnesses.

gag order is appropriate because the jury pool is coming to this trial with nearly a decade of very public debate

Yes. exactly the Jury must be protected as far as humanly possible in this media crazy digital age from being prejudiced. No officer of the Court should be wishing for less.

getting this through to a criminal trial? Is a win. Irrespective of outcome.

No..don't agree. Maybe for you bc you never got your perp to Court. It's different when you do. It's such a big deal, it's so painful to go through all of the pre-trial stuff and the only relief one feels is getting to the trial and then you get through the trial and your heart is in your throat waiting for the result.

It is worse than painful, it is torture. It means so much to get that conviction and get past the appeal period.

The outcome is all that is important when your mind has been so screwed over by QC's wanting to trip you up and make you out to be a liar etc., etc., If you know the legal profession as I think you do... you know that the defence will stop at virtually no tactic to annihilate your character.

You don’t need to be particularly suspicious of the system to believe that a conviction will ultimately be quashed no matter what, given time.

Maybe, maybe not. But we certainly don't need to encourage or endorse media to break and ignore a Court Order which will surely provide the defendant with sufficient grounds to appeal and what do we do then? Start all over? Spend millions on prosecuting him again... if indeed that is even possible bc a intelligent defence will argue once successful with the 'unfair trial' argument that the defendant indeed can never have a fair trial and therefore apply on those grounds for no further action.

What happens then? What a farce. We put those victims through all of that... to allow the system to be corrupted for the benefit of 'public interest' - no thank you. When the prosecution goes after a perp it should throw everything it has at him but it should be fair and seen to be fair. Don't give anyone an excuse to say.. 'yeah but...'

We got a Cardinal to a criminal trial.

Woo hoo... agreed. But let's send him down to prison now! Not good enough to have bragging rights until that is done.

as someone who will never see their abusive priest stand trial? I personally take this as a win

Sorry that you will never have the opportunity to see your perp in the rickety chair... but remember those do.. don't need it to get messed up by media stupidity.

Anyway.. I think I have made my view here clear. I am sorry if I sounded like I think Pell is in any way not guilty.. I'll admit I don't know the facts but I would make a poor juror for many reasons...not least bc I think he is guilty...

What I think is irrelevant.

But I do care.. I care so much that the integrity of the system works and his victims, one and all, get to see him go to prison. There is no remedy that will take away their pain.. not really. But having got this far.. I want nothing and noone to interfere in their rights... and if that means protecting the defendant's rights too.. fine.

It's going to be a good day in Paradise when the conviction is upheld and he goes down for the next lot of alleged crimes as well.
:)