There is an absolutely excellent article released today over on the Quadrant Online website (www.quadrant.org.au) 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.

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.

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!

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..

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/rape-case-on-hold-clarity-sought-on-keeping-false-claims-secret/news-story/7594bce359c54e2ed45175162ce08d7f?from=htc_rss
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.

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]?

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".

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.

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
JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 35A
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 heard the statement from the two judges that he did not embellish his evidence. I heard no reason to disbelieve them.

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

https://www.bibleref.com/1-Peter/4/1-Peter-4-15.html

"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."

Good solid site is that “Got Questions “