18 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2019
    1. M. v THE QUEEN [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487, (1994) 126 ALR 325, (1994) 69 ALJR 83

      This is the case from the High Court that appeal court judges rely upon for the process of how to review an appeal.

  2. Aug 2019
    1. A’s knowledge of such details is said to confirm the truth of his statement that he was there when the alleged offending took place

      This doesn't confirm that he was there when the alleged offending took place, but that he had been around the cathedral and was familiar with its layout.

    2. step back for a moment and simply think about the overall impression that you were left with by [A’s] evidence when it finished ...

      This is hardly a scientific nor accurate way to determine if someone is telling the truth.

    3. As A was walking between the entry to the Priests’ Sacristy and the Archbishop’s Sacristy, Cardinal  Pell  pushed himself up against A on a wall

      Possibility? Many other adults between the victim and Pell and other choristers around as well.

    4. He saw that B’s face looked terrified.

      Where abouts was A? If he could see his face well enough to see that he was terrified, then it could hardly be buried in the flowing robes that Pell was still allegedly wearing.

    5. He was struggling. A could see Cardinal  Pell ’s hands around the back of B’s head

      It is not difficult to twist out of someone just holding the back of his head.

    6. A had no recollection of ever being in this room before

      He changed this account under cross-examination.

    7. jury has had the benefit of having seen and heard the witnesses

      It is interesting to note that in this occasion the jury had not had the advantage of seeing the witness as they had only watched a video, the same recording that the justices watched.

    8. struggling,

      13 year old boy struggling with a 50 year old man? You would think he should have easily been able to get away from his hold.

    9. However, he reaffirmed that the second incident had taken place before Christmas of that year.

      Yet the prosecution decides that the second event didn't occur until February the following year, as otherwise the account was impossible.

    10. He acknowledged that evidence of that nature might be difficult to reconcile with the complainant’s account of how the applicant had managed to ‘manoeuvre’ those robes, so as to expose his penis.

      The prosecutor doesn't try and explain how the robes could be moved. He seems to accept that this was not the case.

    11. At a point somewhere between the doorway to the Priests’ Sacristy and the doorway to the Archbishop’s Sacristy, the applicant suddenly rushed at the complainant, and pushed him forcefully against the wall.

      There would have been a number of adults between Pell and the boy as well as possibly a number of other boys. This just does not make sense, let alone seem likely to have happened beyond reasonable doubt.

    12. The complainant would say that the applicant approached the boys and then ‘proceeded to manoeuvre his robes so as to pull out his penis.’

      This just seems so unlikely. No allegation of grooming or any other inappropriate contact straight to just pulling his penis out.

    13. the applicant entered

      This implies that Pell must have spoken to people out the front before returning to the sacristy to have given the boys time to "poke around".

    14. Accordingly, he was forced to vest and de-vest in the Priests’ Sacristy.

      Pell was where he was meant to be. The boys allege that they were not where they were meant to be.

    15. They slipped away from the procession, once it became clear that the choir were no longer in the public gaze.

      Given that there were adult members of the processing following the boys, how could they slip away from the processing, still in their choir robes, without being noticed?

  3. Jul 2018