Vic police have the green light to charge george pell with sexual abuse

[exited]

Today Justice Kidd will hand down Pell's sentence on video broadcast live across Australia and around the world, a decision a court spokesman said was made in the interests of "open justice.

More here, with a live transcript



I bit more than i thought......

Charge 1 - 2 years and 6 months
Charge 2 - 4 years
Charge 3 - 2 years and 6 months
Charge 4 - 15 months
Charge 5 - 18 months

Total 6 years
Non Parole of 3 Years and 8 Months

Going off that I'd say he's played his last card and all

[allover]

Some from here are in doubt about Geo's conviction, but watching the sentencing today it certainly looked and sounded that the judge was in no doubt. Good riddance Rock Spider after hiding all your pedo mates all these years (confirmed by the Royal Commission), you deserved more

[DB44]

I hate that I come across as defending Pell all of the time. Quite frankly I have no desire to do so. He is not an innocent in his Church's conduct towards Children. But based on what I have read I hope he does win on Appeal and expect that he will.

It is a big mistake to draw any conclusions about the Judge's attitude from his sentencing remarks. He begins by stating that he is bound by the Jury's verdict. This does not indicate his attitude to that verdict. The rest of his remarks are based on this. Pell is a convicted felon. The Judge is sentencing on this basis, applying the various criteria relevant to sentencing and dealing with Counsel's submission. He even indicates satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt of some points, but this refers not to the convictions but to various submissions made by Counsel. Guilty or not is not relevant here. That has already been decided.

Another point to bear in mind is that Pell was no doubt sentenced based on the law as it was 20 years ago. The Penalty would likely be much more severe under current laws.

[ol' boy]

Another point to bear in mind is that Pell was no doubt sentenced based on the law as it was 20 years ago. The Penalty would likely be much more severe under current laws.

You didn't watch the live telecast then
Kidd prefaced that point directly

[DB44]

I came in part way through the sentencing on the car radio. And I had to take a call so missed the end. I filled in the gaps with News Reports.

[Reschs]

Televising his Sentencing, thus turning it into a circus, will only help with his appeal.

[lsemmens]

Televising his Sentencing, thus turning it into a circus, will only help with his appeal.

I don't think so, but, had this not been televised, there would be a circus of he said, she said. This way, everyone can listen to the judgement and make their own decisions. I feel that this was a sensible decision by the judge given the media circus surrounding the case.

[ol' boy]

I came in part way through the sentencing on the car radio. And I had to take a call so missed the end. I filled in the gaps with News Reports.

Justice Kidd stated:

"At the time you committed the offense of sexual penetration of a minor under age 16, the maximum sentence was 10 years, while parliament has since increased the maximum penalty to 15 years it is the lower maximum penalty of 10 years that applies to you........ "

While this sounds exactly like what you are saying, i recommend you go the 1hr20min mark of his sentence to hear what Justice Kidd said next
Even i was surprised!

To quote Justice Kidd again, "In sentencing you, i must have regard to current sentencing practices, the relevant sentences are those i've applied, not those current at the time of your offending"

He also mentioned the maximum sentence was not a starting place nor finishing place in his assessment, just merely a maximum
He then went on to consider on impact of sexual offence victims we know today and how that has to be brought into the equation

[Reschs]

I don't think so, but, had this not been televised, there would be a circus of he said, she said. This way, everyone can listen to the judgement and make their own decisions. I feel that this was a sensible decision by the judge given the media circus surrounding the case.

It will be used in the Appeal.

[DB44]

While this sounds exactly like what you are saying, i recommend you go the 1hr20min mark of his sentence to hear what Justice Kidd said next
Even i was surprised!

To quote Justice Kidd again, "In sentencing you, i must have regard to current sentencing practices, the relevant sentences are those i've applied, not those current at the time of your offending"

He also mentioned the maximum sentence was not a starting place nor finishing place in his assessment, just merely a maximum
He then went on to consider on impact of sexual offence victims we know today and how that has to be brought into the equation

Neither are surprising. When the law encounters this type of problem in various contexts it tends to distinguish between the procedural, which can apply retrospectively, and the substantive, which cannot. The sentencing guidelines applied by the Court are an example of the former, whist the legislative changes are an example of the latter. The distinction can sometimes be a fine point. Had Pell been sentenced under the new laws it would not be entirely unrealistic to add 50% to both his sentence and non-parole period.

So far as the maximum sentence is concerned, his Honour is quite correct. Neither maximum or minimums are starting points. Where they become relevant is in determining a sentence based on the seriousness of the offence. The most serious category of offending would tend more towards the maximum. This is why Pell's counsel was trying to argue that the offences were "vanilla" examples. Counsel had to try, of course, but given Pell's position at the time it was always going to be far more serious.

[ol' boy]

Yeah, i thought it was very balanced and considered
Gives a big insight into the work that is done in preparation, for any case really.... When so many just expect you hang them out to dry.
Personally, i didn't like the way some of sentences can run concurrently and i thought the non-parole period was short, but, who am i to know.

It is funny how if they plea guilty early on, they get a discount in sentence (for not wasting the courts time), i don't really think that is fair either.
And i'm not sure if that is the case for sexual offences? Kidd did make mention of this, i just can not remember

I thought greatest statement to come out of that day, was from the victims lawyer, which can be found int eh link below:

[allover]

DB44, i would think that not allowing myself to be crossed examined like the witness has been. would be detrimental to me and any out come, ie perceived by the jury as trying to avoid a guilt?

[ol' boy]

DB44, i would think that not allowing myself to be crossed examined like the witness has been. would be detrimental to me and any out come, ie perceived by the jury as trying to avoid a guilt?

From what i heard, he was cross examined by his own defence (as they all do).... and they just cringed at his responses.

[lsemmens]

From what i heard, he was cross examined by his own defence (as they all do).... and they just cringed at his responses.

If that were so, then it would appear that the jury had a preconceived judgement and, as such, could be used on appeal to call the verdict into doubt.

[DB44]

This seems to represent the current law in Victoria. At common law no adverse inference was to be drawn by the failure of an accused to testify. This is not quite the same but is fairly similar:



It is common practice in criminal trials, or at least was in NSW, for accused persons not to give evidence. Some people make terrible witnesses irrespective of innocence or guilt. For instance, it is said that many indigenous defendants tend to agree with all statements put to them. But there may be many reasons for not calling an accused to the stand.

I actually thought his Honour did an excellent job on the sentencing and got it right. Concurrent and consecutive sentences are a fact of life. In some sexual offences sentences are part concurrent and part consecutive. The law regarding this is extremely complicated and probably best not discussed in detail here. Discounts for early pleas and in fact plea bargains in general are the subject of continuing debate. They encourage many innocent people to plead guilty in fear of possible wrongful conviction and crippling costs of conducting a trial. They also allow the guilty to get heavy discounts on their sentences. For example, the scumbag in Melbourne who just confessed on the eve of his trial for killing his wife seems to have done so in exchange for being able to plead guilty to manslaughter rather than murder.

Victims very often give heartbreaking statements about their suffering. Not all false accusations are deliberate lies, as discussed earlier, and some of those who make them genuinely believe them to be true. I don't know what really happened here. But without corroboration I think the conviction is a very dangerous one.

[ol' boy]

If that were so, then it would appear that the jury had a preconceived judgement and, as such, could be used on appeal to call the verdict into doubt.

Sorry, i meant he was questioned by his defence, out of the courtroom. No Jury present.
Basically to see how he would answer if cross examined

[OSIRUS]

In Hindsight "Zero Tolerance" to anything illegal would have been a better action by the church .... meaning if anyone did anything illegal they get put into the Police and dismissed from the church

And if they bought it up in "the confessional" the priest could "forgive the sin" .... but they still need to put him into the Police and be dismissed from the church

In going forward I think a "Zero Tolerance" should be adopted into the future

Public confidence would be restored if they knew a "Zero Tolerance" was being seen to be done and potential perpetrators of anything illegal would know they would not be protected in any way .....


Before the Mass Media of the Printing Press, Radio, Television, and The Internet .... it really was a different World ....

[Mr 672A]

This seems to represent the current law in Victoria. At common law no adverse inference was to be drawn by the failure of an accused to testify. This is not quite the same but is fairly similar:



It is common practice in criminal trials, or at least was in NSW, for accused persons not to give evidence. Some people make terrible witnesses irrespective of innocence or guilt. For instance, it is said that many indigenous defendants tend to agree with all statements put to them. But there may be many reasons for not calling an accused to the stand.

I actually thought his Honour did an excellent job on the sentencing and got it right. Concurrent and consecutive sentences are a fact of life. In some sexual offences sentences are part concurrent and part consecutive. The law regarding this is extremely complicated and probably best not discussed in detail here. Discounts for early pleas and in fact plea bargains in general are the subject of continuing debate. They encourage many innocent people to plead guilty in fear of possible wrongful conviction and crippling costs of conducting a trial. They also allow the guilty to get heavy discounts on their sentences. For example, the scumbag in Melbourne who just confessed on the eve of his trial for killing his wife seems to have done so in exchange for being able to plead guilty to manslaughter rather than murder.

Victims very often give heartbreaking statements about their suffering. Not all false accusations are deliberate lies, as discussed earlier, and some of those who make them genuinely believe them to be true. I don't know what really happened here. But without corroboration I think the conviction is a very dangerous one.

This is very common on Criminal trial for the defendant not to to give evidence. Its another reason for ground for appeal " Unsafe Conviction" or "Dangerous Conviction" Yes I agree that is some case where a person is REALLY innocent LEGAL AID will tell them to say you are Guilty so you get a lessor sentence. This alone make a mockery of the Law today. Remember the DPP has a endless pit of money to convict you.

[Mr 672A]

Theses day the courts system run like they do back in the 1770. With Model Technology today the Police should use more modern methods to get REAL evidence so they do not need to rely on uncorroborated evidence what are mainly used for child sex cases.

[Mr 672A]

and they just cringed at his responses.

Why?. Pell was hammered in the Royal Commission and handled himself very well. Like DB44 said 95% of Criminal cases the defendant does not give evidence and in all cases the Judge always tells the Jury this that the defendant does not need to give evidence.