"That Court ruling on Cardinal Pell went right against all that our justice system is based on!"
My nice old codger from Dannevirke really had his dander up, this morning. And he was right on the button.
Just to assure him that he is not alone (as it's easy for Catholics in places like Dannevirke and Waipukurau to feel), but actually in very good company, here are but a few of the criticisms of the Majority Appellate Judges and their Judgment on August 21 on the Pell Case.
First up, a comment to the effect that in questioning the findings of our courts we are well within their rights (as Catholics are within their rights to question utterances of any pope which are not made ex cathedra):
“Respecting the integrity of a jury and court verdict means it is inappropriate to try to break the defendant out of prison; it does not mean that we cannot and should not question the findings of our courts.” (Mirko Bagaric).
“The Victorian Appeals Court’s 2-1 decision to reject Cardinal George Pell’s appeal raises serious questions about justice.” (Piers Ackerman)
“[T]o my mind, [there is] a ‘significant possibility’ that the applicant in this case may not have committed these offences.” (Mark Weinberg, the dissenting appellate Judge).
“There was no supporting evidence of any kind from any other witness. Indeed, there was no supporting evidence of any kind at all. These convictions were based upon the jury’s assessment of the complainant as a witness, and nothing more.” (Mark Weinberg).
“… the Appeal Court found the accuser to be a good witness, and even said he was truthful, which was not for it to say; but good but dishonest witnesses have deceived courts before, and will almost certainly do so again.” (Anthony Daniels).
“Gross injustice” (Michael Warren Davis).
“Besides, even if the two judges who upheld the conviction aren’t themselves anti-clericalists, what choice did they have? Cardinal Pell was convicted in the court of public opinion long ago. His life is already ruined. Why should they go down in history as the guys who let a child-molesting bishop off scot-free? Because it’s just? That’s a quaint notion, though not one you’ll find has much truck with the modern legal class.” (Michael Warren Davis).
“a shocking miscarriage of justice” (Chris Merritt).
“two of Victoria’s most senior judges utterly botched the Cardinal’s case” (Chris Merritt).
“the onus of proof has been reversed …the worst I have ever seen is The Queen v Pell. It curdled my stomach” (Anthony Smith).
“Australian justice is now on trial” (George Weigel).
“this astonishing, indeed incomprehensible, decision calls into the gravest doubt the quality of justice in Australia” (George Weigel).
“The judges who concurred in a grotesque appellate decision confirming the result of a grotesque legal farce may or may not believe in a final judgment. But they certainly have other judgments to worry about. For they have confirmed that a once-admirable part of the Anglosphere known for independent thinking has become something quite ignoble, even sinister.” (George Weigel).
“The evidence presented at both the trial and appellate levels established that he could not have committed the sexual assaults of which he was accused and, outrageously, convicted. Judge Weinberg, writing in dissent, was right about that.” (Robert George).
“Their credibility is now on the line.” (Andrew Bolt).
“A conscientious juror (or appellate judge sitting in review) must not conclude that a complainant is speaking truthfully until after he or she critically compares what that witness says to what the other witnesses say.” (Gerard Bradley).
“Catholic haters have just convicted an innocent Cardinal” (Julia Yost).
“As the dissenting appellate judge was to conclude, the sole accuser’s wholly uncorroborated testimony “contained discrepancies, displayed inadequacies and otherwise lacked probative value.” Oh, well.” (Julia Yost).
“Since when do we convict people of crimes because their accusers sound earnest” (CC Pecknold).
“The justice system is now heavily invested in the conviction of Cardinal Pell” (Phil Lawler).
“… the majority judgment of Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Appeal Court President Chris Maxwell erred by having so much faith in the credibility of the accuser that they reversed the accepted onus of proof required in a criminal trial.” (Keith Windschuttle).
“Now, if judges want to rest their faith in witnesses on an entirely subjective notion like “ring of truth” which, in the absence of hard evidence, can only exist in the eye of a beholder, then they should treat all witnesses equally.” (Keith Windschuttle).
“In short, the Ferguson-Maxwell judgment is one that bends over backwards to support the conclusion it is determined to reach, no matter how embarrassing the position its authors are left in.” (Keith Windschuttle)
“The enemies of Cardinal George Pell had that sort of resolve and that sort of luck. A DPP who kept indulging preposterous briefs of “evidence,” a Pell-hating police force now regarded as the most corrupt in the country, a public broadcaster with a years-simmering hatred of the Cardinal, a second jury of dupable vigilantes eager to convict the self-same but, by then, notorious George Pell and an appeals court which this morning raised preposterous hearsay to the level of DNA and CCTV.” (Currency Lad).
“This disease lies in erosion of the presumption of innocence; which is to say, of that fundamental common law principle that goes back to the Justinian code, expressed in the maxim Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, which puts the burden of proof on the accuser not on the accused.” (Douglas Farrow).
“This power to set aside is indicative, if I may say so, of a new legal fundamentalism in which “the ring of truth” (par. 86 and 91) makes unnecessary close examination of the salient facts, even though detection of that ring by its very nature is a subjective process.” (Douglas Farrow),
"The majority was beguiled by the complainant, and there was an end to it.” (Douglas Farrow).
“This subjective turn represents something more than a peculiar weakness in the majority opinion. It is a sign of a growing disease of law, of a contest—a quite astonishing and destructive contest, as the Pell case illustrates—between what I am calling the presumption of authenticity and the far more fundamental presumption of innocence.” (Douglas Farrow).
There now, my nice old codger. Does that make you feel better?
And are certain clerical faces turning a nice shade of red? If not, I can assure them that I'm embarrassed on their behalf, by the clergy's abandonment of a prince of the Church to an undeserved fate. And we haven't even started on Cardinal Pell's thoroughly 'Strine' interventions in financial shenanigans in the Vatican?
But I take issue with Michael Warren Davis (a journalist writing for Catholic publications in Australia and the US), who says Cardinal Pell's life "is already ruined" because he's been convicted in the court of public opinion.
Who else was convicted in the court of public opinion? Our dear Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Jews tried to stone twice, who was hustled to the edge of a cliff in Nazareth to be thrown down, who was rejected by the crowd in favour of Barrabas, whipped, crowned with thorns, led to Calvary and crucified.
God the Father has honoured Cardinal Pell with a pale imitation of the suffering of His Divine Son, for the salvation of souls.
It's my bet that the Cardinal, by his solitary confinement, by pulling weeds in the prison yard, offering all the shame and denigration, and the cold-shouldering of his brother priests, to win souls for Christ, is doing more for the Church than all the rest of the clergy - including ex-Cardinal McCarrick in his comfy monastery, feted no doubt and a bit of a star - put together.
Don’t judge anyone after just listening to one side of an argument only is something most of us have probably learnt through life experience at some point. Unfortunately, some people never learn and that is so obvious at times in the public arena.
ReplyDeleteI pray that a just decision be finally given for Cardinal Pell.