Andrew Bolt: The law must take its course in case of Cardinal Pell
SOME have reacted to George Pell’s committal as if it were a trial result but the cardinal’s guilt, or otherwise, is still to be decided, writes Andrew Bolt.
Andrew Bolt
Don't miss out on the headlines from Andrew Bolt. Followed categories will be added to My News.
CARDINAL George Pell was sent to trial in Victoria’s Country Court this week on multiple charges of historical sexual offences.
That has been hailed by a number of journalists as proof that “not even the country’s most senior Catholic figure is above the law”.
But the point of this committal was not and should not be to show whether even a cardinal is bound by our laws.
That was never in question in a country that has already jailed politicians, priests, journalists and top businessmen.
PELL COULD STILL FACE TRIAL ON ORIGINAL CHARGES
COURT TRIAL A LEGAL KNELL FOR PELL
The point of this committal and the trial to come is simply this: whether Pell is guilty or innocent of the crimes with which he is charged.
It is not to decide whether the Catholic Church is guilty of anything.
It is not to give alleged victims of anyone more courage to come forward. It is not about anyone’s agenda.
This is only about whether one man is guilty of specific crimes or whether he is innocent and has been wrongly charged.
For that reason, the cheering in the court on Monday, the jeering at Pell outside it and the gloating on Twitter is all misplaced.
No one can yet know if Pell is guilty. That is for future juries to decide.
And so none of us can know whether this legal process is a victory for victims or a torment for an innocent man.
Indeed, Magistrate Belinda Wallington, in sending Pell to trial on Monday, made plain she was in no way herself prejudging Pell’s guilt or innocence.
“It is not the task of a magistrate conducting a committal proceeding to assume the role of a jury,” she said.
Earlier, she’d made clear she would only dismiss those of the multiple charges against Pell that had a “fundamental defect”.
Wallington wanted to leave charges to a future jury to rule on “except when you get to the point where credibility is effectively annihilated”.
That is a low bar.
There is much I cannot say about her findings that is relevant here. That must wait, because ensuring Pell gets a fair trial is paramount.
All I can note is that several claims against Pell that were pushed by the media never even reached this courtroom and have been debunked.
Is Pell guilty? We still don’t know. Just wait.
Lockdown will kill Victorians — but not from coronavirus
Politicians are destroying Australia — throwing a million people out of work, causing suicides — because they’ve fallen for two great weaknesses, both of which will extend crippling lockdowns much longer than necessary, writes Andrew Bolt.
Record day proves crude bans on freedom don’t work
Victoria’s new record of 725 infections is more evidence that the government’s hard line policies on masks and lockdowns aren’t working as planned, writes Andrew Bolt.