Jimmy Savile

If he (Pell) gets off, it'll only be to face more charges.

Screw it, in for a penny, in for a pound. Remittance back to the big appeals court.

High Court quashes the Pell original decision.

Well let's hope lardys right.

Picked it like a dirty nose.

The Vic Supreme Court looks a little stupid now.

Well he works in mysterious ways, qunt that he is

Does that mean Pell can go back to bumming the choir boys at the Vatican, or is lardy correct about him facing more charges?

Be nice if the big wallopers were waiting for him outside the gates with a pair of bracelets.

skully wrote:Does that mean Pell can go back to bumming the choir boys at the Vatican, or is lardy correct about him facing more charges?

Wait and see I guess. It would be weird if the Vic DPP thought this wasn't their best chance for a conviction so maybe there isn't anything else they think can stand up in Court.

Doesn't stop a bunch of civil cases though, including that from the witness in the criminal trial.

Keep dragging his name is through the mud until he expires after a painful disease his religion doesn't afford him an easy escape from works for me

Hard to argue, Q.

He'll never feel safe walking the streets again.

Subjecting him to the pitiless scorn, wrath, and contempt of the general public might end up being a harsher sentence than imprisonment.

I can't see him ever being allowed to conduct a service again, not even by the Catholic Church.

He'll spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder for a vengeful attacker.

Well he'll never be lonely whilst Abbott, Bolt and Howard walk the earth. Wouldn't surprise me to see him pop up at some service in some form this weekend.

He's more likely to be sighted with 'Gloria', you'd think.

He'll finish up back in the Vatican ....out of public view

I could happily self isolate in one of those renaissance apartments, hot and cold running nuns. For the record I thought the original verdict was unsafe ( not necessarily wrong). But since when has the law had anything to do with justice. We got Bormann with less on a retrospective law because the qunt deserved it

Weak of Pell to hint of police witch hunt.

So the royal commission called him a lying, devious qunt (I'm paraphrasing) who broke a law or two.  Would have taken the "he said/his and his and his sycophants said" into perspective.

Oh well got Sky and the weekend Oz to look forward to spinning this one.

Bradman wrote:So the royal commission called him a lying, devious qunt (I'm paraphrasing) who broke a law or two.  Would have taken the "he said/his and his and his sycophants said" into perspective.

Oh well got Sky and the weekend Oz to look forward to spinning this one.

Pretty spot on. Read some summaries and the Marr piece in the Guardian. There will be other redacted stuff about how he treated parents lodging individual complaints.

At best Pell comes across as a remarkably stupid person more concerned with protecting the institution he worked for. There are far worse constructions. VicPol are investigating whether he committed crimes.

I'm not even sure anyone's been prosecuted under those laws let alone successfully.

Bradman wrote:I'm not even sure anyone's been prosecuted under those laws let alone successfully.

Pretty terrible if that is the case. All those in the CC privy to information and/or used in cases of the transfers of the Ridsdales effectively colluded in ongoing crimes. They suppressed info that should have gone to the cops.

Qmy - would a writ of mandamus have prospects of success in requiring the Police and the DPP to take appropriate action?

If you've got the money I've got the time. Talk about rare. But that what it's there for. Pretty cute but judges hate them. You'd probably need a John Deed on the bench.

Bradman wrote:If you've got the money I've got the time.  Talk about rare.  But that what it's there for.  Pretty cute but judges hate them.  You'd probably need a John Deed on the bench.

Yes, I know it is rare. Theoretically Judicial Review and the AAT are there as surrogates. Yep I bet Judges would hate considering such a writ - not least as such writs sit on the cusp between the State and Legal system. It is however open to Victims Groups/parents/survivors to pursue.

horace wrote:

Bradman wrote:If you've got the money I've got the time.  Talk about rare.  But that what it's there for.  Pretty cute but judges hate them.  You'd probably need a John Deed on the bench.

Yes, I know it is rare. Theoretically Judicial Review and the AAT are there as surrogates. Yep I bet Judges would hate considering such a writ - not least as such writs sit on the cusp between the State and Legal system. It is however open to Victims Groups/parents/survivors to pursue.

It's mainly used in admin law cases. Refugee rights for example and then to stop someone doing something. You're talking about a potential criminal prosecution by a state agency. Not even sure anyone has ever tried that this side of Lizzy 1s reign. And even then just because a decision is blatantly stupid doesn't mean it's wrong in law. You have to prove its unlawful.

I got a question about this on my finals and felt like walking out and finding the nearest pub and a handgun.

To reiterate bring money, the govt has people at its Beck and call who charge by the hour what most people call a decent fortnightly wage. Funnily enough Pell could actually use mandamus to get the high court to rule the RCs findings against him were wrong. I think Lindy used it to finally frame the dingo.

Bradman wrote:

horace wrote:

Bradman wrote:If you've got the money I've got the time.  Talk about rare.  But that what it's there for.  Pretty cute but judges hate them.  You'd probably need a John Deed on the bench.

Yes, I know it is rare. Theoretically Judicial Review and the AAT are there as surrogates. Yep I bet Judges would hate considering such a writ - not least as such writs sit on the cusp between the State and Legal system. It is however open to Victims Groups/parents/survivors to pursue.

It's mainly used in admin law cases.  Refugee rights for example and then to stop someone doing something.  You're talking about a potential criminal prosecution by a state agency.  Not even sure anyone has ever tried that this side of Lizzy 1s reign. And even then just because a decision is blatantly stupid doesn't mean it's wrong in law.  You have to prove its unlawful.  

I got a question about this on my finals and felt like walking out and finding the nearest pub and a handgun.

To reiterate bring money, the govt has people at its Beck and call who charge by the hour what most people call a decent fortnightly wage.  Funnily enough Pell could actually use mandamus to get the high court to rule the RCs findings against him were wrong.  I think Lindy used it to finally frame the dingo.

Wow ... did not know about Lindy and the Dingo.

A very long time ago a group of us tried to tease out its potential use in pressuring States over James Hardie and the Smorgon Group as well as its potential under The Cth failing to act against big Corporates - contraventions of Corporations and Tax Law. There was a sense at the time that the Cth and States were not fulfilling their legal obligations to investigate and prosecute without nods and winks.

Even the then record fine to Visy for price fixing barely put a dent in their profits from the scam. That Pratt was not charged with fraud and allowed to muck around in Board land was a travesty. Post his death Fairfax did a detailed investigation of his methods. His use of the Hells Angels as debt collectors was eyebrow raising.