Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (8)
Court of Appeal president Chris Maxwell.
Follow this streaming link to the proceedings of Victoria’s Supreme Court in the matter of George Pell’s appeal. For those with a subscription, The Australian has a live blog running updates on the arguments.
And during the court’s recesses, the links below provide invaluable background of Cardinal Pell’s persecution, the improbable accusation and a jury’s inexplicable decision at the initial trial.
The Borrowed Testimony that Convicted George Pell
The Social Media Witch-Hunt for George Pell
The Course and Consequences of Operation Get Pell
I’ve been watching/listening since it started at 9:30, and am so thankful I dropped out of law school. I need a drink, or 10, but there is still 1 hour 17 minutes to go today, then another full day tomorrow.
Before the hearing started Chief Justice Anne Ferguson warned listeners they may hear something disturbing (there were no visuals other than the front of the court and the justices) and referred anyone affected and needing assistance to Lifeline and Beyond Blue.
But at least there was no “Welcome to Country” ceremony.
The stutter of the Crown lawyer is terrible – much better suited to a “back roomer” than a court.
Who says judges don’t earn their money? This is beyond excruciating.
Boyce doesn’t earn his, imo – is he the best taxpayers can afford?
I know the level of complexity is far higher than in traffic offence hearings, but still I have experienced Police Prosecutors far more articulate, persuasive and prepared than Boyce.
From The Australian, re Boyce:
.
The poor chap stumbled his way through his appearance before the court, at one point accidentally blurting out the name of the only living victim in the Pell sex crimes case.
The victim is described by the prosecutor as a ‘highly credible witness’. Maybe so, but then the same credibility must be assumed for Pell as defendant. (Even more so of course, given Pell’s known history and character). Therefore Pell has the right to the assumption of innocence, given that their shared credibility cancels each other’s testimony.
Justice Ferguson summarised this point nicely (taken from The Australian):
‘“Really what you’re saying is that the complainant’s evidence was so strong, was so forceful, so credible, such that he was a witness of truth, beyond what you might see in other cases, that it’s going to take a lot to create a reasonable doubt,” she said.
The prosecutor’s reply was necessarily utterly lame:
‘Mr Boyce agreed but said it was hard to compare with other cases.’
If I were Justice Ferguson my internal assessment of that statement would be, ‘Uh-huh’.
Very handful of websites that take place to become in depth below, from our point of view are undoubtedly effectively worth checking out.