[AusRace] Pell

Thu Mar 21 18:34:19 AEDT 2019

THE AUSTRALIAN

Pell case attracts inaccurate views

GERARD HENDERSON

R v George Pell was one of the highest-profile cases in the history of criminal law in

Australia. Similar in its news impact to Lindy Chamberlain’s conviction (followed by

acquittal) in the 20th century and Ned Kelly’s conviction (followed by hanging) in the 19th

century.

As such, it is more important than usual for reporters and commentators to be factual —

especially in view of the international attention the case has attracted. Unfortunately, the

coverage so far has had many blemishes — which go to a basic misunderstanding of the law

and how it operates.

On Wednesday, ABC TV’s The Drum devoted the first half of the program to a discussion

on Pell’s sentencing, following his conviction in December last year by a jury of 12.

Victoria, unlike such jurisdictions as NSW and Queensland, does not provide for trial by

judge alone.

Early in The Drum’s discussion, presenter Craig Reucassel said emphatically that “a judge

and 12 individuals have found him guilty”. This is hopelessly wrong.

If Reucassel had studied Chief Judge Peter Kidd’s sentencing remarks, he would know that,

early on, the judge had this to say: “I must at law give full effect to the jury’s verdict; it is

not for me to second-guess the verdict.”

Later on, when referring to the matter that the spontaneous attacks took place at St Patrick’s

Cathedral in a room with the door open, he said: “If I am required to identify other

By GERARD HENDERSON, COLUMNIST

12:00AM MARCH 16, 2019

explanations as to why you (Pell) were prepared to take on the risk of somebody walking in

on you into the priests’ sacristy, then I do.

“By the jury’s verdict, this offending occurred, and no one walked into the priests’ sacristy

while you were offending. These are the facts which I must act on.”

In other words, Kidd made it clear — and properly so — that his role as the trial judge is to

accept the jury’s verdict as fact without second-guessing its decision.

Reucassel should have known this, as should his producer, who could have advised an onair

correction but apparently did not.

In the discussion, panellist Shivani Gopal claimed that Pell offending against one of the

boys, called “R”, resulted in his death. In fact, the sentencing judge said that “it is common

ground between the parties that R’s death is not related to the offending against R”.

Reucassel did correct this error. However, he said nothing when Gopal criticised Pell’s sixyear

sentence as too soft, claiming that white-collar criminals “go to jail for life”.

This is mere hyperbole and quite unfair to Kidd. It can always be argued that a particular

sentence is too soft or too hard. However, it seems in this case the sentence was about right

for the charges on which the jury found the defendant guilty.

Pell would have received a shorter sentence if he had pleaded guilty but he maintains his

innocence and his appeal will be heard by the Victorian Court of Appeal in early June.

Without regard to the sentence, it is important to remember that Kidd said that Pell had led

“an otherwise blameless life in the 22 years since the offending” in 1996. He also referred to

Pell’s “otherwise good character”.

The errors in commentary about R v George Pell did not stop at the ABC. Just after the

sentencing findings were handed down, Derryn Hinch tweeted that the judge “saw right

through him (Pell)”. This despite the fact that Kidd had said that, by law, he had to accept

the jury’s decision.

Then on Thursday, Ray Hadley led off his high-rating 2GB/4BC program with the claim

that Pell’s appeal would only be with respect to law, not facts. Two out of three matters

involve questions of law. However, the principal grounds of appeal are that the verdicts are

unreasonable having regard to the evidence. Pell’s appeal grounds are contained in a public

document that is available to Hadley and all his listeners. There is no excuse for error.

Graham Richardson normally talks a lot of sense. But he was not in the best of form at the

start of his Sky News program Richo on Wednesday.

Richardson claimed that, with respect to Pell, “there’s been this massive effort with silence

orders and things to try and make no one have an idea about what’s going on”. He added: “I

mean, if you’re George Pell, you can get that. I think that if I was on trial for pedophilia

tomorrow, I’d have Buckley’s at having my name removed … I think everyone would be

speaking it. It’s just something I think the church has handled badly for so long.”

In fact the suppression orders in the Pell case were issued by the Victorian County Court

and were supported by the Office of Public Prosecutions.

They were designed to make it possible for Pell to get a fair trial in a subsequent case. This

prosecution was dropped by the Victorian OPP when it determined that there was

insufficient evidence for a conviction — and the suppression order was lifted.

In any event, suppression orders do not work in the age of social media.

Moreover, I am aware of one suppression order in a current pedophile case where the

defendant is neither well known nor a Catholic.

It is to be hoped that ill-informed media comment dissipates in the lead-up to the appeal.

This is likely to be one of the most important legal cases in recent years.

As The Age’s crime reporter John Silvester has put it, the Court of Appeal has to consider

whether a verdict is safe in a case where the defendant “was found guilty beyond reasonable

doubt on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness, without forensic evidence, a pattern

of behaviour or a confession.”

Whatever the outcome of the appeal, this decision will set a precedent of far greater

significance than either the Chamberlain or Kelly cases.

Gerard Henderson is executive director of the Sydney Institute. His Media Watch Dog blog

can be found at theaustralian.com.au.

GERARD HENDERSON, COLUMNIST

Gerard Henderson is an Australian author, columnist and political commentator. He is the Executive

Director of the Sydney Institute, a privately funded Australian current affairs forum. His Media Watch

Dog colu... Read more

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of norsaintpublishing at gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, 21 March 2019 5:43 PM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] The SP, a shark, and the long arm of the Law

"The defence argued that this information was hearsay, (it needs
corroboration to be admitted), and so it's inadmissible as it is."

Which places the conviction of George Pell in its proper context. 

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 17:13, Tony Moffat <tonymoffat at bigpond.com <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> > wrote:

When fishing off a small boat just outside the breakers at Coogee a 14 foot
tiger shark was snared.
That is big, and on braid, it being pre-nylon in 1935 when this happened.
The shark was trailed ashore and taken over by the aquarium nearby. 

The shark disgorged a complete human arm and had not eaten anything  while
being observed.

The arm had tattoos of two boxers, the hands were fingerprinted and these
matched SP Jimmy Smith.

There was a summation that Smith had cheated on other crime figures, not SP
related though, and that Reginald Holmes
was involved, and further, Smith had been lured to a seaside house to meet
Patrick Brady and Brady had been recruited by
Holmes to murder Smith. The arm was severed from the body, and shown as
proof of the deed most foul having been completed, and the arm was 
thrown in the sea to dispose of it, and this allows the entry of the shark
to this story.

Later, on the harbour now, the Police were called to the matter of an out of
control launch and on this launch the found
Holmes with a bullet wound, to the head. Holmes maintained he had been shot
by an unknown man, and again there was a summation that 
Holmes had meant to suicide but this failed, it has to be said, and Holmes
was treated by a nurse and allowed to go home.

Brady gave  series of statements and records or interview to Police,  and
Detectives charged Brady with murder, of Smith.

Later, before the inquest of the presence of the arm, Holmes was found dead
at Dawes Point, near the Bridge, murdered
by shooting, 3 times under the heart with a .32" calibre firearm.

Holmes widow told the inquest that her husband told her that Brady killed
Smith, no specifics known.

The defence argued that this information was hearsay, (it needs
corroboration to be admitted), and so it's inadmissible as it is.
Further, an arm did not constitute a body, and Smith may well be alive,
without his arm. Although not habeas corpus, it kind of is.

Brady was acquitted after inquest evidence was allowed and admitted. 

Smith was a SP in a South Coast town, the other SP was the Undertaker. Apart
from his perceived dislike by Holmes, Smith appears harmless.

Cheers

Tony

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com <mailto:Racing at ausrace.com> 
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190321/a38fcf0f/attachment.html>