Cardinal Pell acquitted!

[Nearly Sane]

WhereTF did I say it was?

I was merely confirming that, at least when I was there, the progression through the education system to the judiciary was very similar to that of the UK!

So, as a matter of fact, were several other things, like most political appointments - I am well aware that, over the years the situation has inexorably changed, in fact, shortly after I left Oz, a very left wing Pom ex-trades Union Leader (can't for the life of me remember his name) became Prime Minister - wasn't that a shock to the Nobs!

From the news that has reached here from Oz, mostly when something nasty happens, the UK emigrants lobby has almost totally lost any kind of grasp on any kind of political power in Oz.

I have, however, found that about the one organisation that has not lost the power it held, where I lived and worked, Kings Cross, is the Mafia or whatever it calls itself there these days. This organisations attitude to child abuse was as draconian as any I have ever heard of and their response to it was usually instant and final.

Well by replying to a post on the thread where that claim had been challenged. I have no idea what point you are making.

[Owlswing]

 Well by replying to a post on the thread where that claim had been challenged. I have no idea what point you are making.

In truth, why does this not surprise me?

As I have observed before on these boards your intelect is so far superior to mine I am sometimes surprised that you find anything worth commenting on in them.

NO, this is not a criticism of you, but an admission to the deterioration due to age of which I am all too well aware.

[Nearly Sane]

In truth, why does this not surprise me?

As I have observed before on these boards your intelect is so far superior to mine I am sometimes surprised that you find anything worth commenting on in them.

NO, this is not a criticism of you, but an admission to the deterioration due to age of which I am all too well aware.

I like you, I like your passion.

[ippy]

Having lived in Oz for several years and having appeared before the judiciary there on four occasions (fined on each occasion - three for assault while emplaoyed as a bouncer at a Kings Cross strip-joint and one for possession of an offensive weapon (a brass knuckle-duster) during the same empployment (Oh Happy Days!) I can confirm that the members of the bench in those days were very much denizens of the Oz version of the UK Upper Classes and frerquently showed the same attitudes and prejudices as their UK equivalent.

Wether this is still the case is something to which I can no longer attest however.

Sounds about right to me Walter, I have first hand experience of how similar the Aussie system works and it's so similar to how it is here in the UK, in fact I'd go as far as saying their system in this area is exactly similar, clone like.

Regards, ippy.

[Nearly Sane]

Sounds about right to me Walter, I have first hand experience of how similar the Aussie system works and it's so similar to how it is here in the UK, in fact I'd go as far as saying their system in this area is exactly similar, clone like.

Regards, ippy.

The plural of anecdote isn't data - where is your evidence for the Australian legal system being institutionally corrupt in general, and specifically in terms of religion?

[ippy]

In truth, why does this not surprise me?

As I have observed before on these boards your intelect is so far superior to mine I am sometimes surprised that you find anything worth commenting on in them.

NO, this is not a criticism of you, but an admission to the deterioration due to age of which I am all too well aware.

Nice one Owl.

Regards, ippy.

[Owlswing]

Sounds about right to me Walter, I have first hand experience of how similar the Aussie system works and it's so similar to how it is here in the UK, in fact I'd go as far as saying their system in this area is exactly similar, clone like.

Regards, ippy.

Sorry Lassie, but I am NOT Walter - in any respect whatsoever!

[Walter]

Sorry Lassie, but I am NOT Walter - in any respect whatsoever!

you wish 

[ippy]

Sorry Lassie, but I am NOT Walter - in any respect whatsoever!

Beg your pud Owl, I've been going in and out of my garden and just having a quick look whilst in passing my PC desk without being careful enough, obviously, apologies to Walter as well.

I'm sure you two big brave boys'll forgive me.

Regards to all, ippy. 

[Owlswing]

you wish 

In your dreams, Bruv, in your dreams!

[Owlswing]

Beg your pud Owl, I've been going in and out of my garden and just having a quick look whilst in passing my PC desk without being careful enough, obviously, apologies to Walter as well.

I'm sure you two big brave boys'll forgive me.

Regards to all, ippy.

Forgiven!

[Robbie]

Sounds about right to me Walter, I have first hand experience of how similar the Aussie system works and it's so similar to how it is here in the UK, in fact I'd go as far as saying their system in this area is exactly similar, clone like.

Regards, ippy.

I wouldn't say the same. It strikes me as being harsher and more influenced by pubic sentiment (cue outrage), than here.

(I've seen the typo & will leave it 'becos' it amuses me.)

[ippy]

I wouldn't say the same. It strikes me as being harsher and more influenced by pubic sentiment (cue outrage), than here.

(I've seen the typo & will leave it 'becos' it amuses me.)

The Ausie judiciary, where the candidates selected from, who they are and how they acquire the job is a clone like copy of the UK's system. 

Regards, ippy.

[Owlswing]

The Ausie judiciary, where the candidates selected from, who they are and how they acquire the job is a clone like copy of the UK's system. 

Regards, ippy.

From a few, rare, conversations with vistors from Oz, it does appear that the automatic advanbcement of Poms has been considerably curtailed and the system from which judges and other senior civil servants are employed has become far less open to Poms purely because tghey are Poms.

In some cases this was a necessary improvement that took far too long to arrive.

 

[Nearly Sane]

From a few, rare, conversations with vistors from Oz, it does appear that the automatic advanbcement of Poms has been considerably curtailed and the system from which judges and other senior civil servants are employed has become far less open to Poms purely because tghey are Poms.

In some cases this was a necessary improvement that took far too long to arrive.

Any chance that either you or ippy want to give evidence that the Australian justice system is institutionally in favour of Christians of a sort? Or do you want to continue  in a mutual wanking anecdote session?

[Owlswing]

Any chance that either you or ippy want to give evidence that the Australian justice system is institutionally in favour of Christians of a sort? Or do you want to continue  in a mutual wanking anecdote session?

I thought that what I was saying was that although it probably was the case when I was out there it no longer seems to be so.

As I have absolutely no idea what "a mutual wanking anecdote session" is I cannot answer that question. You seem to have reverted to your sneering persona which I thought we had left behind us, but hey=ho leopard, spots, etc I suppose.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think there is a more general point about the Australian (and our judicial) system that it is structurally tipped in favour of the defendant. Firstly, of course, that the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt in such cases. But also that the defendant has several attempts at acquittal - not just the original trial, but then appeal and potentially supreme court (or equivalent). The defendant only needs to win in one of those three stages to be permanently acquitted - the prosecution needs to win in all three for the conviction to be sustained.

Now I'm not saying that is necessarily wrong, but it does bias the system in favour of the defendant, but I do have some concerns in types of offence where the key is consent, where there is perhaps very little independent forensic evidence - potential such as rape, sexual abuse etc. I think it also makes it more difficult for victims to come forward if they understand that they have to be successful at three separate stages to secure justice.

[ippy]

From a few, rare, conversations with vistors from Oz, it does appear that the automatic advanbcement of Poms has been considerably curtailed and the system from which judges and other senior civil servants are employed has become far less open to Poms purely because tghey are Poms.

In some cases this was a necessary improvement that took far too long to arrive.

I think you're more than probably right about the poms Owl, just as you say but the system of going to the right schools etc etc all be it the Aussie equivalents, other than that it's virtually a carbon copy of how our system works.

Regards, ippy.

[jeremyp]

I think there is a more general point about the Australian (and our judicial) system that it is structurally tipped in favour of the defendant. Firstly, of course, that the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt in such cases. But also that the defendant has several attempts at acquittal - not just the original trial, but then appeal and potentially supreme court (or equivalent). The defendant only needs to win in one of those three stages to be permanently acquitted - the prosecution needs to win in all three for the conviction to be sustained.

Now I'm not saying that is necessarily wrong, but it does bias the system in favour of the defendant, but I do have some concerns in types of offence where the key is consent, where there is perhaps very little independent forensic evidence - potential such as rape, sexual abuse etc. I think it also makes it more difficult for victims to come forward if they understand that they have to be successful at three separate stages to secure justice.

In the UK the jury is no longer instructed to convict only if it is "beyond reasonable doubt" but only "so that you are sure".

[ProfessorDavey]

In the UK the jury is no longer instructed to convict only if it is "beyond reasonable doubt" but only "so that you are sure".

Is that a lower burden of proof or just using more normal language to describe the same burden of proof?

Nonetheless that is of no consequence to my more substantive point which is that (except in exceptional cases) the defence only needs to win once to secure a permanent acquittal while the prosecution needs to win three times to secure a permanent conviction.

[ippy]

In the UK the jury is no longer instructed to convict only if it is "beyond reasonable doubt" but only "so that you are sure".

Whilst I'm sure you're right about the way the Aussie legalities differ from the UK version jp, I was only referring to how and where from the people involved in that business come from.

Regards, ippy.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

In the UK the jury is no longer instructed to convict only if it is "beyond reasonable doubt" but only "so that you are sure".

Sorry - a quick bit of research demonstrate that to be untrue - "so that you are sure" is just another way of describing "beyond reasonable doubt" - it is not a lower burden of proof.

From:

https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/what-is-a-criminal-case

'In a criminal case the burden of proof rests on the prosecution but the standard of proof is far higher so the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (meaning the magistrates or jury have to be satisfied so that they are sure of the defendant’s guilt).'

[jeremyp]

Is that a lower burden of proof or just using more normal language to describe the same burden of proof?

I think it is a slightly lower burden of proof or a better way for jurors to judge it. How reasonable is reasonable? In a case like Pell's where the verdict depends only on the testimony of the alleged victim, there's always a possibility that the alleged victim is not telling the truth. It's quite difficult to judge what a reasonable doubt is.

Nonetheless that is of no consequence to my more substantive point which is that (except in exceptional cases) the defence only needs to win once to secure a permanent acquittal while the prosecution needs to win three times to secure a permanent conviction.

I agree, but I think that is as it should be. Don't forget you can't appeal a decision just because you don't like it. There has to be some sort of grounds e.g. some error of process or new evidence that wasn't available at the time of the original trial.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think it is a slightly lower burden of proof or a better way for jurors to judge it. How reasonable is reasonable? In a case like Pell's where the verdict depends only on the testimony of the alleged victim, there's always a possibility that the alleged victim is not telling the truth. It's quite difficult to judge what a reasonable doubt is.

I don't believe there has been a lowering in the burden of proof in criminal cases and my link suggest that there hasn't, merely a re-statement of the same burden in different, and perhaps more easily understandable, terms.

Had the burden of proof actually been lowered this would be a major change in our legal system and one that, surely would require significant consultation, and presumably an Act of Parliament - I'm not aware of any of that.

[Nearly Sane]

I thought that what I was saying was that although it probably was the case when I was out there it no longer seems to be so.

As I have absolutely no idea what "a mutual wanking anecdote session" is I cannot answer that question. You seem to have reverted to your sneering persona which I thought we had left behind us, but hey=ho leopard, spots, etc I suppose.

You know what, you're right. I misread your post in my annoyance at ippy's continued evidence free implications that the Australian judiciary is institutionally biased towards Christians bundled you in with that. So, my apologies.


I would never give up my sneering persona, nor any other of my multiple personas, as that one comes up with some of my better lines.