PM, Defence Minister & ADF Chief announce we'll join US in Mid-East maritime operation
Vatican statement on Cardinal PELL today

Best comment on Pell decision today comes from Archbishop Anthony Fisher

Archbishop Anthony Fisher. Picture: Hollie Adams


“Cardinal Pell continues to (maintain his innocence) notwithstanding today’s decision. Today’s split decision amongst the judges is consistent with the differing views of the juries in the first and second trials, as well as the divided opinion amongst legal commentators and the general public.

“Reasonable people have taken different views when presented with the same evidence and I urge everyone to maintain calm and civility.”

“I pray for and will continue to support survivors of child sexual abuse at the hands of clergy and other members of the Catholic Church so that they may find justice and healing,” he said.

“I again say how sorry I am that you were harmed by people you should have been able to trust. I am conscious how you and your loved ones have had to live with the consequences of abuse for a lifetime.”


It's still imprudent to make definitive comments about the Pell prosecution, conviction and Victorian appeal as the Cardinal has 28 days to appeal to the High Court.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Up The Workers!

There is an absolutely excellent article released today over on the Quadrant Online website ( by author Paul Collits, entitled: "Ashton's Circus: Victoria's Blue Clowns".

This article ties together the virulently anti-Catholic persecution, vilification and victimisation of Cardinal Pell by Labor and its' Farce Command "Get Pell Squad" 12 months ahead of a well-rehearsed 'complaint' being laid; the hypocrisy and double-standards applied to the persecution of one man for a crime he could not have committed, while another politically high-profile accused rapist's victim is spurned by Labor figures and cannot get her case anywhere near a Court.

It also goes into the Lawyer X scandal; Farce Command's persecution of elderly Conservatives and seeking to severely punish them for their peaceful personal political views by attempting to extort $50,000 in cash from them in order to protect them from vile and violent Leftard thugs, etc.

Well worth reading.


EXCELLENT and well balanced.


“I again say how sorry I am that you were harmed by people you should have been able to trust. I am conscious how you and your loved ones have had to live with the consequences of abuse for a lifetime.”

And THIS...

"It's still imprudent to make definitive comments about the Pell prosecution, conviction and Victorian appeal as the Cardinal has 28 days to appeal to the High Court."

Am very concerned for victims of child sex abuse (when not doing black humour of kiddy fiddler jokes) because i spent a week with the late Paul Ronald Goldsmith in Tassie during 1988-9 and looking back, horrified what this guy did 20 counts of sexual abuse of boys between 13 and 16 and i was 16 and another boy was 15 when i spent a week with Goldsmith after he grubbily won over my parents' trust. He was trainee priest then school teacher at Marist private boys' Catholic school in Burnie, NW Tassie and then prominent businessman via Eagle Insurance and 'CAPITTA' i think and boy, he was VERY charming man who had EVERYONE eating out of palm of his hands. But turns out he was evil as they come and after his nearly 7 year jail term expired, he went to Tanzania before death and then-Tassie ALP govt said 'It's a matter for Tanzanian authorities' when a Hobart archbishop (can't remember name but on public record) showed public anger this guy went to Tanzania on some 'missionary' with kids. He died several years later and GOOD RIDDANCE.

BUT - PELL has 28 days to appeal. Now, if PELL doesn't appeal then it confirms his GUILT. Because that will tell you that he KNOWS that if he appeals, he will lose and get longer sentence.

However if PELL does appeal, then he really believes his innocence regarding ruling against him - because he knows if such appeal fails - it means likely longer sentence.

'Prisoner's dilemma'.

WELL DONE Michael for picking up such handy 'prisoner's dilemma'. And you DID pick this up.

Up The Workers!

I hope that Cardinal Pell isn't now mysteriously "suicided" in prison, like Jeffery Epstein recently was.

Epstein was allegedly the 49th victim of a violent, non-natural death who held incriminating information on crooked Leftard Killary KKKlinton and her impeached Leftard crook of a hubby, Bonking Billy KKKlinton.

One is bad luck.
Two is a coincidence.
Three is a habit.
Forty Nine is a genocide by the Leftard losers.

seeker of truth

I think you are wrong about a longer sentence. The prosecution has to file an appeal as to the inadequacy of Pell's sentence. Again it only had 28 days to do that after the sentence was handed down (that was 13 March). Time was up come mid April. It hasn't lodged an appeal in that time frame so obviously the DPP is satisfied with Pell's original sentence and non-parole period.

Pell has nothing to lose (except money) if he takes it to the High Court of Australia provided that Court accepts his grounds for referring it to that Court.

Steve J

Pell can only appeal to the High court on a question of Law.
The Court of appeal decision was concerned with an evaluation of the evidence. A question of fact.
If he doesn't appeal it says nothing about an admission of guilt.
Now I know this will confuse you but a question of fact can amount to a question of law if no reasonable tribunal could have reached the decision that it did.
Not an easy thing to show!

Michelle Two

The judge questions the credibility of the said victim..
One of the three judges hearing George Pell’s appeal would have ordered he be acquitted, given what he described as a “significant body of cogent evidence” casting serious doubt on the victim’s accoun­t.

In his dissenting ruling, judge Mark Weinberg said the case was unusual, depending entirely upon the victim being accepted beyond reasonable doubt as a credible and reliable witness.

“Yet the jury were invited to accept­ his evidence without there being any independent support for it,” he wrote.

Justice Weinberg said the victim at times embellished aspects of his account. “On occasion, he seemed almost to ‘clutch at straws’ in an attempt to minimise, or overcome, the obvious inconsistencies between what he had said on ear­lier occasions, and what the object­ive evidence clearly showed.”

He said while there was nothing inherently improbable about child sex abuse by senior clergy, the victim’s evidence needed to be examined within the surrounding circumstances.

“In the present case, there was a significant body of cogent evidence casting serious doubt upon the complainant’s accoun­t, both as to credibility and reliability,” the judge said.

Michelle Two

Speaking on the credibility of alleged victims.. I read this delay in a rape trial in NSW in the Australian yesterday and the implications of the victim not being credible and her background coming into the case..
A rape trial has been put in limbo while the NSW government considers whether to amend a ­ law that prevents defend­ants from ­introducing evidence­ about any previous false sexual complaints made by their accusers.

The trial was due to start this week in regional NSW, but the District Court judge agreed on Monday to put the case on hold until the legal issue can be reviewe­d by NSW Attorney-Genera­l Mark Speakman.

The Australian recently revealed that a judge in a separate rape trial, involving a man known as “RB”, had called for changes to section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act because of its potential to cause “significant unfairness”.

The section was introduced to protect rape victims from being cross-examined about their sexual history. However, it is drafted so broadly that courts have agreed it also prevents an accused from introduc­ing evidence about any previous false sexual complaints made by the alleged victim.

RB’s lawyers had uncovered evidence of 12 incidents in which his accuser had made previous false complaints about sexual abuse.

This included two separate incide­nts in which the woman had made false reports to police.

Michelle Two

Preach ... a call for action and bringing about the change.. it is happening and the Pell case is one that brings darkness out in a place that has many secrets..
The energy shifts are going to keep bringing up the darkness where ever it lies and no soul will be untouched as we go through this process of cleaning up society..
The light has brought up much with this one case alone as it has religion, politics, media and the judicial system.. the light is upon us.. as we shift energy again.. love and light xx

Walk your talk and come from a place of love, compassion and integrity as they go hand and hand with your true soul as your conscience doesn't let you stray off the true path of soul or hurt others on the way..

Gerard Flood

Dear Steve J,
thank you very much for your willingness [deeply appreciated!] to "cast your pearls before swine" like me, over the years, and especially now in this troubling case.

Two points re the extent of the ambit of the HCA in a prospective appeal :

[1] The 2015 amendments to the law under which Kidd J conducted the trials includes a prohibition - in child sex abuse cases - which forbids the judge's normal warning to the jury against uncorroborated testimony, as well as forbids other normal cross examination practices, in order to treat the complainant as a vulnerable child whose history of veracity must not in effect be challenged, including for signs of "false memory".

Question : In a prospective appeal to the HCA, would it open to the Defence, or to the HCA, to challenge, discount or reject the validity or acceptability or admissibility or application of the provisions of the new law?

and [2] The trial justice in his summing up specifically focussed the attention of the jury, not on the credibility of the elements of the complainants testimony, but specifically on the credibility of the complainant PER SE [emphasis added]. The quote is something like, 'If the jury is satisfied that the complainant is telling the truth, then you will have no difficulty in a guilty verdict.' As a layman, I think that this instruction by Kidd J is wrong in law, because - specifically, IN THE TRIAL JUDGE'S SUMMING TO THE JURY - the jury must be directed to the [objective] FACTS ALLEGED, not to the [subjective] assessment of the complainant's reliability. This error [if error it is] was not raised by the Defence in the appeal.

My question is, "Is the HC authorised in law to consider - either because it is raised by the Defence, or on its own initiative - my above points at [1]or [2], [or any other elements not mentioned here], or is the HCA restricted by law to considering only material which is part of the second trial [and conviction]?


12 Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.

13 But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.

14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.

15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler.

16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

17 For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

18 And,
“If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”

19 So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.

1 Peter 4:12-18.

… has not Cardinal Pell moved ever closer to that which he has devoted his life to pursuing?

Should not this “light” of truth be reflected on his (Quadrant listed) persecutor the ABC, Louise Milligan, Fairfax (now Nine) press, Julia Gillard, Vivian Waller, David Marr et all?

Or is the human frailty of qualified belief a weak link too strong to break?


If Cardinal Pell appeals, I don't think he will be thinking so much about the legal consequences of doing that.
He will be thinking about TRUTH. He claims innocence so he will be appealing for the sake of the truth of the matter regardless of any 'prisoners' dilemma".


Thanks for that opinion .Not being skilled in legal matters I wonder if you might give a simple example of a question of fact becoming a question of law.


Pell won’t lose any money over an appeal.

The Catholic Church have already said they will support him, and they have plenty of money.


A few comments:

1. Appeal Courts are good, when they choose, at reconfiguring questions of fact into questions of law.

2. Sometimes the High Court will cut through all the arguments and simply say that a conviction is "unsafe".

3. Here the Victorian Court of Appeal took on a somewhat inquisitorial role in the course of the appeal. For example, I understand that it visited the church and looked at the robes. Is that correct? If so, then a right of appeal should be automatic.

4. Following on the preceding point, I heard one or more of the judges say several times "The Court finds...." Isn't a "finding" unusual for an appeal court, especially if it is in respect of a question of fact?

5. Appeals to the High Court are not automatic and require the leave of the Court. Leave applications are determined in a very brief hearing before one or two judges. The Chief Justice chooses those persons at the time of the leave application. The Chief Justice is Susan Kiefel.

6. There is a widely held view that Leftist thinking is so embedded in Victoria that it has captured many minds with leadership roles in the police, the DPP and the judiciary. However Susan Kiefel is not from Victoria.

Steve J

To get an appeal heard an application for special leave must be made.
Most of the applications for such leave are given very short shrift.

Here are the Judiciary Act provisions covering them
Criteria for granting special leave to appeal
In considering whether to grant an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court under this Act or under any other Act, the High Court may have regard to any matters that it considers relevant but shall have regard to:

(a) whether the proceedings in which the judgment to which the application relates was pronounced involve a question of law:

(i) that is of public importance, whether because of its general application or otherwise; or

(ii) in respect of which a decision of the High Court, as the final appellate court, is required to resolve differences of opinion between different courts, or within the one court, as to the state of the law; and

(b) whether the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or in the particular case, require consideration by the High Court of the judgment to which the application relates.

They generally aren't interested in something unless it involves an important legal point about which there is some controversy or there has been an obvious miscarriage of Justice.
They are simply too busy to do anything else.
The provisions about uncorroborated evidence etc have to be accepted.
That evidence of course was always admissible and the traditional warning should have served only to reinforce what a reasonable person should have done anyway.
In weighing up the evidence any Jury should assess the weight to be given.
Kidds direction was nothing more than advice that they had to consider that weight and that if they accepted it as true then it would necessarily follow that Pell had committed the acts.

Whether that should have been the result given the "opportunity evidence" considered as a whole is the main point of Weinbergs judgement.
Actually he dismissed as very improbable the complainants account of the assault in the Cathedral corridor and this necessarily also brought into question his account about the sacristy.
Pell had other accusations made against him.
The so called "Swimmers case" was dropped by prosecutors.
Attempts to introduce elements of that in the Cathedral case as similar fact evidence were I understand rejected.
If Pell had given evidence it would inevitably have involved him in a defence of his character which would have opened the door for attacks of this nature.
It jars that the first jury , which saw the accuser and the surrounding activity live, apparently voted to acquit 10 to 2; but the second one, which only saw a video, convicted unanimously.
In a case so obviously dependant on an assessment of the truth of the witness there must have been something of significance in this.
Lets say that the decision was a closely run thing; say that there was a 50/50 chance that any person selected at random would go either way.
The probability of getting 12 out of 12 voting for conviction is miniscule (.02 of 1 percent). Beyond reasonable doubt??
The probability of getting up to 10 persons out of 24 voting for an acquittal is only 27%.
Looking at it another way if the probability of a juror voting for an acquittal was only 25%, the chances of 10 or less out of 24 voting that way would be 97%.
25/75 doesn't sound like a fair assessment of the closeness of the evidence to me.


I wonder whether verse 15 implies that if one is a murderer ,thief etc that suffering (justice ?) is to be anticipated and acceptable .These things not being the character of a Christian

Col Griffin

I heard the statement from the two judges that he did not embellish his evidence. I heard no reason to disbelieve them.

Steve J

This is not meant as a comprehensive description but as an example.
A question of law will arise if there is no evidence to support the conclusion of fact, or it is obvious from the transcript of the case that the Law was misunderstood in some relevant particular. Lombardo v FCT 79 ATC 4542; Hope v The Council of the City of Bathurst 80 ATC 4396
or the tribunal misconceived the parties submissions or failed to consider them at all; Ma v FCT 92 ATC 4373 or the conclusion arrived at was not one which was reasonably open on the facts FCT v Veterinary Medical & Surgery supplies 88 ATC 4542; FCT v Mc Cabe 90ATC 4968 and Nizich v FCT 91 ATC 4747

In Mc Cabe the interpretation of the phrase "eligible person"(a question of law) was correct but the conclusion that the taxpayer was such a person (normally a question of fact) was unreasonable on the evidence. That unreasonable finding was crucial to the Tribunals ultimate decision and therefore it was set aside on the ground that, being a decision that no reasonable decision maker would have made , it involved an error of Law.
Clear as mud isn't it?


Yes, that would be how I read it and I think it is mostly applicable to the "born again" ones who find religion when in prison serving their sentences for their (human) crimes.

The following is from the site

"Peter is quick to say, though, that not all suffering is equally honorable. A Christian who experiences the natural consequence of sinful choices, including being punished by the state for criminal activity, should not make the mistake of thinking he or she is suffering for Christ. No Christian is obligated to suffer as a murderer or thief or meddler. No Christian is required by God to suffer for doing anything immoral or evil. This is for a simple, logical reason: no Christian is ever told by God to do such things. Even if they themselves are being wrongfully persecuted, insulted, or falsely accused, Christians are called to good and moral conduct."


Thank you. When I have about six months free I can try and digest the example you quoted .Cheers .


Good solid site is that “Got Questions “



Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)