Is second guessing a jury verdict arrogant and cruel to victims?
Reading Time: 2 minutes
Frank Brennan’s recent statements on the trial have been widely criticised. This article is no exception. In today’s ‘The Australian’ Brennan offers a qualified apology. In so doing, unfortunately he reveals that he does not really understand the criticism, by suggesting that without his input he ‘would have left the field largely to those journalists who attended the trial, some of whom display a lack of accuracy as they seek to paint their own picture of the proceedings.’
Occasionally we read an article that encapsulates our views, and does so with enviable style and clarity. This is such an article.
That the article has been published in the Jesuit journal ‘Eureka Street’ is a credit to the publisher’s integrity and commitment to promoting wide ranging views. This decision is additionally to be applauded in that the journal’s best known and regular writer is Fr Frank Brennan.
Frank Brennan’s recent statements on the trial have been widely criticised. This article is no exception. In today’s ‘The Australian’ Brennan offers a qualified apology. In so doing, unfortunately he reveals that he does not really understand the criticism, by suggesting that without his input he ‘would have left the field largely to those journalists who attended the trial, some of whom display a lack of accuracy as they seek to paint their own picture of the proceedings.’Some quick points on Brennan’s defence. There are many ways of stating a legal argument without implying that the factual (not legal) finding by the jury was wrong and that Pell should not be overly criticised. As a Law Professor, Brennan should appreciate that everyone (including him) paints their own picture. Perhaps his desire to protect his Church leaves him under the delusion that he is the only one capable of accuracy and impartiality.
In questioning the appropriateness of jury findings of fact (not Law) Brennan overlooks the irreversible reality that 12 jurors found Pell guilty, and that even the Court of Appeal will not be able to erase the impact of this conviction.
Finally, Brennan appears to overlook or downplay the damage and hurt to victims occasioned by those praising or defending Pell even after his conviction. We may disagree over whether Pell is guilty, but what we can’t possibly disagree on is whether the plight of victims should be recognised.
(Visited 30 times, 1 visits today)