澳洲红衣主教佩尔的法律团队向联邦高院提出上诉申

在澳大利亚澳洲新闻



红衣主教佩尔把推翻他的儿童性侵定罪的法律战打到了联邦高等法院。

在维州上诉庭8月驳回了佩尔的上诉后，他的律师已经向联邦高等法院递交了长达12页的上诉申请书。

这名78岁的教皇前顾问目前在狱中服六年刑期，他因为1990年代担任墨尔本天主教大主教时对St Patrick大教堂两名唱诗班男孩的性侵而被判入狱。

佩尔必须服刑3年8个月才能申请假释

在上诉庭法庭于8月28日驳回上诉申请后，佩尔的法律团队有28天时间可以向联邦高院提出上诉申请。

维州上诉庭的三名法官以2：1做出驳回决定后，佩尔的法律团队仔细回顾了法官们的判词。团队希望佩尔的定罪判决能被推翻。

如果上诉申请被接受的话，这将是他最后一次挑战定罪判决的机会，但是联邦高院并不保证会聆讯这个上诉。

法庭可以决定根据书面申请就接受上诉，或要求进行一个简短的聆讯 - 后者的话聆讯很有可能要明年才进行。



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-17/george-pell-to-appeal-to-the-high-court/11437796

评论
最后一搏

评论
无耻之尤的极端例子。。。

Rot in hell, Pell.

评论


是战吗？

评论

翻你翻你

评论



评论
别浪费纳税人的钱了！

评论

飞儿入错党了

评论

上一次的上诉完了以后，好奇这个案子为什么有争议，搜索了一下，读到一篇报道，下面是节选的部分


So, what is the case against him?

In short, Pell was accused of having sexually abused two choristers immediately after a 10:30 a.m. Sunday Mass, in the sacristy of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in East Melbourne in the 1990s, when he was serving as archbishop of Melbourne. At the time of the alleged attack, Pell was dressed in full vestments; the sacristy door was open; the master of ceremonies, the sacristan, the altar servers, and the concelebrating priests had all disappeared and remained out of sight for the full duration (ten minutes or so) of the attack. No one saw or heard anything to corroborate the primary complainant’s account. And the second complainant, who died of a heroin overdose in 2014, denied that the abuse ever occurred, according to his mother.

Louise Milligan, author of the axe-grinding book Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell, had a different emphasis in her recent report for ABC News. “The other choirboy remained silent about what George Pell did to them until his friend’s death,” she wrote. “Then, four years ago, with private and resolute determination told his truth to Victoria Police” (emphasis added).


His truth, Ms. Milligan? What about the truth?

For those forgetful of the particulars of the Pell case, permit me to briefly recap.

In March 2013, more than a year before any complaints were filed against Pell, Victoria police began their “Operation Tethering,” soliciting any “information” regarding inappropriate contact with minors at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne. No crime had been reported. Requests for information were advertised in the local press.

In early 2017, the police told Pell that there were, as yet, no allegations. A few months later, they alerted him to forthcoming charges. Of his own volition, Pell traveled from the Vatican back to Australia to defend his innocence.


In March 2018, a pretrial “committal hearing” of four weeks ensued. At the end of it, the magistrate permitted the case to go to trial. Significantly: A court injunction prevented the nature of the accusations, the development of the case, or even the verdict from being discussed by the Australian media. Also significantly: That did not prevent widespread speculation and character assassinations from appearing in the press, influencing public perception and likely prejudicing the jury.

The first jury trial, in October 2018, resulted in a hung jury, meaning that the jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. Witnesses who attended Pell’s trial said that the jury had voted overwhelmingly, 10–2, voted for Pell’s acquittal. Despite this, prosecution decided to go ahead with a second trial. It took place in December 2018. The new jury found Pell guilty of five charges of sexual abuse of minors.

But don’t serious accusations require equally serious review? Don’t they, in other words, require evidence? For those seeking revenge against institutionalized sexual abuse — in the Catholic Church, on the casting couch, in the culture at large — perhaps this is insignificant. Perhaps if a person is male, or conservative, or a Catholic priest, he should be considered guilty until proven innocent. But in a criminal court? If the function of law is to determine the truth and to deliver justice — note: this is distinct from the function of a Church tribunal or congressional hearing (e.g. Brett Kavanaugh’s), which, for the additional purpose of assessing a person’s suitability to a leadership role, weighs (even low-evidenced) accusations against concerns such as safeguarding and moral character — then the Pell case shows how profoundly dysfunctional the Australian legal system is.


A man was accused of a serious assault, denied it outright, and — on the basis of the accusation alone; an accusation described as outlandish by the dissenting judge — is now behind bars.


George Weigel, who has also written about the case here at NRO, writes at First Things that “for the moment, this astonishing, indeed incomprehensible, decision calls into the gravest doubt the quality of justice in Australia — and the possibility of any Catholic cleric charged with sexual abuse to receive a fair trial or a fair consideration of the probity of his trial.” Catholic clerics, yes. But also, anyone.

The stubborn questions remain. Beyond his accuser’s account, what evidence was presented against Pell? Where were the facts, established and proven beyond reasonable doubt? Like the blindfolded Lady Justice, they are, in this strange case, unnervingly absent.



评论
最后一搏
澳洲中文论坛热点