Abstract

The appeal decision should be respeted and not subjected to grossly biased commentary.

Article

The antipathetic commentary onthe result of the Pell appeal is grossly biased and shameful. It was perhaps to be expected, having regard to the quality of respectability in standards absent in the usual conduct of those who do not discuss these things in a rational way but pursue an ulterior motive.

One excuse has been thatthe Court woould not be courageous enough to uphold the appeal despite that it would believe that it shouldsucceed.  Ha!  The proposition is so ooutrageous and unreal as to reflect instant discrediton the proponent.

Another is to promote the criminal credentials of the dissenting judge by comparison with that of the majority, who are contemptuously described as commercial lawyers.This is a poor and lame effort to try to find somethiing on which to hng an argument. All thejudges were of the highest quality and were not lacking in the necessary experience.  Maxwell P, had been President of the Court of Appeal for many years, presumably having had many criminal appeals during that time.

The criticisms omit to refer to the fact that twelve jurors, representing a strong collection of human experience had also reached the same conclusion as the majority.  That is not conclusive, but it is seriously misleading to omit acknowledgment of it.

This appeal turned on value judgments as to the assessment of the credibility of a witness. On such an issue, the view of the dissenting judge is not to his discredit if he was wrong.

It must be acknowledged that the system isnot perfect and that the wrong result may obtain, but it has proved itself to be the best that canbe achieved,and right in the vast majority of cases. It should not be disrespected and subjected to self-serving criticism when a result does not please the critics for their purposes.Such disrespect is destructive of social cohesion as well as morally bankrupt.

This is certainly nnot to suggest that any decision is exempt from criticism.  It is published in good faith with full reasons for publictransparency and scrrutiny, and is certainly subject to reasonable criticism,even if the criticism is wrong. But it should not be subjected to biased and arrational attack by interests with set agendas and contrived arguments, knowing that the courts cnnot respond.