Name: ジョージ・ペル氏の上告が棄却された理由を裁判所が説明｜ナイン・ニュース・オーストラリア (Court explains why George Pell's appeal was dismissed | Nine News Australia)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T09:29:34.000Z
Duration: 21 min 17 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

様態の副詞

One leave to appeal is granted with respect to ground one only, and the appeal is dismissed.

I will now read a summary by a majority of 2 to 1.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed Cardinal Pell George Pell's appeal against his conviction for the Commission of sexual Offenses.

Hey will continue to serve his sentence off six years imprisonment.

Hey will remain eligible to apply for parole after he has served three years and eight months off his sentence where the Cardinal Pell will be released on parole.

It will be a matter for the adult parole board, not the courts, before describing in summary form why the court has reached the decision it has, there is some relevant context off nose.

Last year, Cardinal Pell was convicted of five specific sexual offenses alleged to have been committed on two occasions in the meat 19 nineties, when he was the Catholic archbishop off Melbourne.

In a previous trial on the same charges, the jury were unable to reach a verdict.

Cardinal Pell's position is that he should not have been convicted.

Cardinal Pell's conviction and this appeal have attracted widespread attention both in Australia and beyond.

He is the saying a figure in the Catholic Church and is internationally well known as the trial judge.

Chief Judge Kid commented when sentencing Cardinal Pell.

There has been vigorous and sometimes emotional criticism off the cardinal and he has been publicly vilified in some sections of the community.

There has also been strong support for the cardinal by others.

Indeed, it's fair to sigh that this case has divided the community.

It is important to stress at the outset that Cardinal Pell's conviction only concerns the five offenses alleged to have been committed by him again.

As the trial judge observed, He is not to be made escape boat goat for any perceived failings of the Catholic Church, nor for any failure in relation to child sexual abuse by other clergy.

His conviction and sentence could not be a vindication off the trawler by other victims.

Off sexual abuse defenses, in respect of which Cardinal Pell was found guilty by a county court jury, were one charge of sexual penetration of a child under six staying and four charges are being decent act with a child under six stain.

The trial lasted for five weeks the jury deliberated for several dies.

Each of us has watched recordings off the evidence given by 12 of the 24 witnesses at the trial.

We have also watched recordings off the view.

The jury were taken on the walk through really technical issues, Yes, which is, which is a pity.

But where you do know now what the result is?

The court has decided by 2 to 1 majority to dismiss George Pills application.

He gets to stay in prison now, as the chief justice, and Ferguson pointed out to continue his six years imprisonment until he's eligible for parole.

This is a major blow for George Hill and his supporters, the head, their hopes on the finding that the jury couldn't offend in guilty.

That was the biggest hope that the Court of Appeal would find that the jury could not have found beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't molest those two schoolboys back in the 19 nineties.

And yet, as you conceived out, there are lots of people there who are outside the court who are waiting for this decision.

Those that representatives of artisans of office groups Kristina Annual day.

Went up here outside the Supreme Court when news filtered through that.

You're a very well known survivor advocate Michael.

What is the feeling now that you know that George Pell is going back behind bars to serve out the rest of his sentence?

Look, it's absolutely outstanding news, you know.

So we can now officially say bye or high court appeal and no debt.

Pel, you know he's a master using every legal tactic theories.

But we can comfortably say Pelle is a criminal.

Pel is a destroyer on a maim A off young Children.

He's a pathetic human being, a pig of them in on.

Look, three years and eight months we can live with that is no non parole period.

I'd also like to say I think it's outrageous that he's being able to receive fan mile of up to 2000 letters while is their prison isn't a retreat.

Prison isn't a holiday Prison isn't a process where you know you you respond to your fan mile.

Michael, Can I just ask where you were you anxious today?

Because obviously there was the possibility that George Hill could be walking free today.

Describe what it's been like for you and other advocates today and the relief that you now feel Look, it's it's being truly and not me.

I had a victim on the phone to me last night at 20 to wait just in tears.

I must proudly say I I did predict this, that it would be overturned than ever, and almost other people said no on the reason being is you know, it all came down to these beyond reasonable doubt.

And we're the jury over emotional about it.

At the end of the day, the witness supposedly waas whether the jury had attended the two scenes of the crime they had.

God bless the 12 good people of Australia.

Thanks very much for joining us, Michael.

We know that you are very relieved and we do appreciate your time here will just give you a look around because obviously there's some.

Or choose that it going up here outside the Supreme Court.

Now that the decision has been made that the appeal is dismissed on the cardinal will remain behind bars.

Of course, he was sentenced to a maximum of six years in prison as Michael just mentioned there to non parole period of three years and eight months.

Eso Just after that decision was made, a news filtered through here.

There certainly was a cheer and there is celebration, said it, continuing here outside the Supreme Court with survive advocates after the Court of Appeal handed down their judgment just a short time ago.

Now we seem to have anyway, some of the audio issues they had before.

Shall we go back inside the appeal court to fear more off the way the UN raised novelists grand is relied upon?

The task for the Appeal Court is to decide whether on the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

Be inquiry, which this grand requires is a purely factual one rather than a discreet question of law, where the argument is that the trial judge has made an era when the UN raise anomalous ground is relied upon.

The appeal court reviews the evidence as it was presented to the jury, the Appeal court asks itself whether on that factual material, it was reasonably open to the jury to convict the accused.

Having reviewed the Hall of the Evidence, two of the judges of the Court of Appeal, Justice Maxwell, president of the Court of Appeal and Die I have decided that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Cardinal Pell was guilty off the offenses charged.

In other words, we decided that there was nothing about the compliance evidence or about the opportunity evidence went.

That meant, which meant that the jury must have had a doubt about the truth of the complainants account in a written raisins.

We have stated that it is not enough that one or more jurors might have had a dash.

We also state that we did not experience a doubt.

Justice Maxwell and I accepted the prosecution's submission that the complainant was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist and was a witness of truth in a written raisins, we start.

Throughout his evidence, the complainant came across as someone who was telling the truth.

He did not seek to embellish his evidence or Taylor is in a manner favorable to the prosecution.

There were some things that he could remember and many things which he could not, and his explanations of why that was so had the ring of truth.

We examined the evidence of other witnesses relevant to the issue of whether there was a realistic opportunity for the offending to have occurred.

Was there a reason to doubt the complainant's account?

Having read and in some cases watched the evidence of all of the opportunity witnesses, we accepted that there was general consistency and substantial mutual support in the picture they painted of what occurred at the cathedral before, during and after Sunday mess.

In the period when Cardinal Pell was Archbishop, Justice Maxwell and I take the view that this was unsurprising, since the defining feature of religious observance is adherence to ritual and compliance with established practice.

Justice Maxwell and I state that at the same time, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses varied in quality and consistency, ending the degree of recall both as between witnesses and within the evidence of individual witnesses.

We saw it at least two possible explanations for these first, the passage of 22 years between the alleged events and the trial meant that their waas inescapably a real degree of uncertainty attaching to the memories of the opportunity witnesses.

Secondly, attempting to recall particular events is all the more difficult when the events being described, uh, as they were here of a kind which was repeated week after week, year after year and involved the same participants in the same sitting.

字幕リスト動画再生

ジョージ・ペル氏の上告が棄却された理由を裁判所が説明｜ナイン・ニュース・オーストラリア (Court explains why George Pell's appeal was dismissed | Nine News Australia)

relevant

process

significant

context