First of all, as I have said repeatedly, I have never defended George Pell generally, I have only ever questioned his conviction for sexual assault.
The reason why I have questioned his conviction is that the story the complainant told was ridiculous on its face and supported by no evidence but his own testimony. He was obviously extremely credible in the way he gave his evidence, and I personally think he probably believed what he was saying. (People can convince themselves of anything.) But the inherent absurdity of the story and the weight of evidence in support of George Pell were such that the prosecution should never have been brought.
1 Like
I am over arguing with you Sheldon Lawyer.
Nowhere did I find that the High Court in written or verbal statements used the term ridiculously improbable or grossly improbable
If they did please point it out to me and I will stand corrected. The High Court did state more than once that the evidence given by the victim was credible and reliable, but your comment seeks to paint this very differently. I do not care about your motivations to degrade the victim, but at least you are consistent.
1 Like
I get all that in terms of the final decision but I don’t understand why you are so strong on the subject…I don’t see you hold such strong views in other threads (in fact, I don’t see much from you in other threads…but that’s on me).
That’s my question really…why are so you strong in your views in this particular thread?
I do post in other threads, sometimes quite a lot, sometimes not so often.
I don’t actually post in this thread very often, but every so often someone says something particularly stupid and, against my better judgment, I point out what was wrong with it. That post is then followed by the usual outpouring of Pell-hatred and abuse of me, some of which I reply to (if it’s factually wrong, as much of it is); if it’s just plain abuse I usually don’t bother. Except that I do rather enjoy setting off a couple of particularly vehement posters.
1 Like
‘In substance’ not = verbatim.
Personally I think Pell should rot in jail, but you’ve made a straw man here.
Except Davo they have not said that in substance either.
High Court has been very careful about saying that the victims evidence was credible and reliable, and there is nothing to indicate even in subtance, which means in reality.
Nope, far too good for him
Credible delivery of evidence, belief in the evidence given, but he made it all up.
George is terribly unlucky he was targeted by this bloke and lucky for George The High Court effectively re-tried the whole case.
1 Like
Thanks for your response.
How can a victim provide evidence of something that happened 30 years ago, if there are no live witness (I recognise it’s equally hard for the defendent too).
I don’t get how anybody can just write the testimony off as being ridiculous. A grown powerful man sticking his ■■■■ in a boys mouth is going to sound ridiculous, because for any decent human being it is a ridiculos thing to do. I’m not sure how sexual abuse of a child is going to sound sane. That’s not on the victim to explain or justify.
1 Like
Thanks, I appreciate your legal dissection of the case and that you stay in your lane.
But I would like to hear from you as to whether you - as a person of legal expertise - see a need for reform of the law in regard to the evidentiary hurdles face in child abuse as to the standard of credibility compared to that in adult abuse cases ( not referring to the criminal standard of proof in this context)
4 Likes
When the high court made their decision I would assume they did it in the cold light of day with only transcripts of evidence the prosecution brought forward including testimony the victim gave?
It would I think be much easier to find reasonable doubt in that circumstance than when the dozen people in the jury heard that evidence delivered. I would imagine it was very confronting and moving to hear.
That is of course one of the advantages or disadvantages of a jury trial, people can be convinced of something through a credible witness statement.
Personally I don’t know if Pell did it, I think he did, but I trust the 12 jurors who agreed he is guilty.
I also understand the high courts decision, of course there is reasonable doubt, the passage of time unfortunately creates this. I can’t imagine what it’s like for victims to come forward only to go to trial and get that result. I worry about future historical sexual convictions citing this as precedent
2 Likes
Well as a matter of fact the evidentiary hurdle facing any person, child or adult, in a civil claim for compensation for sexual abuse is lower than the criminal burden. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt.
In addition, there are a large number of protections in place for victims, or persons claiming to be victims, of sexual assault. The extent to which the complainant may be cross-examined is greatly limited, and any questioning that is aggressive is impermissible. Of course the defendant, as a matter of natural justice, must be allowed to dispute the complainant’s claim, and to put to the complainant facts which cast doubt upon what he or she says; but this must be done in a respectful and non-threatening manner. A lot of responsibility is placed on the judge to balance the protection of the victim and natural justice for the defendant.
Those protections for the victim are also in place in criminal courts. Depending on the circumstances, the alleged victim may give evidence by video-link or other steps may be taken to avoid the complainant having to face his or her alleged abuser while giving evidence. A complainant cannot be cross-examined on his or her prior sexual history.
I don’t have enough experience of sexual abuse trials, civil or criminal, to have an opinion on whether more protections are needed. I know there are some people who say that every complainant should always be believed, but not many people would agree with that. If a defendant disputes a claim, he or she must be allowed to question the complainant’s testimony. Other than that, I don’t have an opinion.
2 Likes
Physical processes for the delivery of evidence in a courtroom are welcome, but don’t go to the substance of the standard of credibility to an event occurring in adulthood and evidence from an adult., compared to an adult giving evidence of event in that adult’s childhood.
As I posted in my Q to you , this is not about the standard of proof. It’s about different standards of credibility.
1 Like
I don’t know exactly what you mean by a standard of credibility. I am sure people – whether a jury or a judge – understand that a young child is likely to have a limited understanding of what an adult may be doing to him or her, and therefore a limited ability to articulate it to a jury. In the end a person, child or adult, is either credible or not, and I would say that the thing that most affects credibility is the inherent probability of what the person is saying. If a person says that he was abducted by aliens, then the person is unlikely to be believed, whether the person is an adult or a child. On the other hand if the person gives evidence about having been befriended by an adult, and about how the after a while began to touch him or her, first on “neutral” parts of the body (shoulder, back, etc.), and then closer and closer to sexual parts, and then finally touched directly, then that has some plausibility; and if things like the evidence about the circumstances in which the touching occurred also stacks up, there’s a fair likelihood that the person will be believed.
1 Like
Standard of credibility comes down to the degree of power a person holds in regard to their status in society. ( It can vary between adults as well, in regard to the respect accorded in testimony depending on their place in society)
1 Like
I’m afraid you’ve lost me. If you mean that a person who’s, say, a doctor or a judge or a priest is more likely to be believed than, say, a manual labourer, then I would say that there was probably some truth in it 50 or 100 years ago, but I don’t think there’s much truth in it today, and probably none at all for the priest.
Less credibility attached to a child.
I don’t think so. And it’s pretty rare anyway. Most of the allegations of child sexual abuse are made years after the event, when the victim is an adult.
But they are presenting evidence from when they were children.