Abstract

Beware of the comments of the extremeists.

Article

The High Coourt has now thoroughly reviewed Cardinal Pell's conviction, and by applying proper legal principles, has found that despite the strong manifestation of honesty and reliability of the prosecution's main witness, evidence as to objective and unchallenged related issues should have caused the jury to have a reasonable doubt of his guilt.

The substituted verdict of Not Guilty does not predicate innocence.  The principle requires an acquittal even if there is only a reasonable doubt, which the prosecution must exclude, even if it is thought probable that the accused is guilty.

Those who say that the High Court has found the Cardinal innocent are palpably wrong, and if they know better, they are mischieviously misrepresenting the facts.  Their conduct is if anything worse than the extremeists on the other side who do not accept the decision of the Court.

It has also been suggested by these people that the Cardinal should not have been charged, that the case was plainly flawed. This is at best ingenuous.  The complainant's evidence was compelliing, and it was only the evidence produced by the defence at the trial, which did not include a denial by the Cardinal, that led to a reasonable doubt.  It was not until the whole of the evidence was advanced and tested on trial that the proper result could be determined. The criticism laid is so illogical and wrong that it must be contrived, and its use throws a colour on the rest of the commentary from that quarter. Indeed, the committing Magistrate foound that there was a prima facie case of guilt, and  twelve ordinary men and women were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that what the complainant said was true and correct.  Surely, that shows that a charge and trial were justified.

On the quality of their commentary to this point, , it is likely that they will try to divert revelation of the findings of the Royal Commission on Child Abuse insofar as it relates to the Cardinal.  It is only to be hoped, probably vainly, that they will advance the argument of the presumption of innocence,which in fact is to be exercised only as part of a criminal trial in accordance with the location of the onus of proof of guilt, which resides with the prosecution.  There is no such presumption, nor a requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in any community judgment of the affair.

Those who criticise the Court's judgment eitherdo not understand what the law requires before itincarcerates a person on such serious charges, or are blinded by prejudice.

After the decision, the Vatican seemed to imply that the decision indicated that the complainant was guilty of dishonesty and was moved by some base ulterior motive.  If it were so intended, it was a disgraceful statement,and would demonstrate that its attitude towards violated children has not improved, despite proclamations to the contrary