Thread by @fchralph, And this is where, as a criminal lawyer, I will step back [...]

And this is where, as a criminal lawyer, I will step back from Twitter. Nothing good will happen here.

Update. I lasted 8 hrs.

Ok. All criminal lawyers get asked the same question at dinner parties. ‘How can you defend X knowing they are guilty?’ That question is a really loaded one because you are asking a lawyer why they do what they do. The answer to that question is (1) the rule of law and (2) the

presumption of innocence. The criminal lawyer’s role boils down to ensuring that these fundamental principles, upon which our democracy is built, are adhered to by the executive and the State. So how does this play out at trial? Well, generally we look for R.A.T.S.

!

Rational alternative theories (consistent with innocence). If there is no

then we have guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Now #Pell had a number of

’s that left open the possibility of innocence. If the prosecution cannot kill the

then that

follows down a pathway...

An alternative pathway consistent with innocence. So the questions were pretty simple for the HCA in #Pell. Where was the rat? Was it legit? If it is legit did it scurry down an alternative pathway? The answer today was unequivocal. There was a rat and it did scurry down...

that path. Thus we have a miscarriage of justice. A criminal lawyers job is to be a strategist with an ability to foresee where the

will run or if at all or whether that rat rationally leads to innocence. Why? Because the alternative is the hell of innocent people being gaoled

This is called “the Blackstone principle” - I.e. better that 100 people don’t go to gaol versus 1 innocent being imprisoned. So when people say that Pell got off on a legal technicality. They wrong. When they say that Pell was ‘declared’ innocence or guilty. They wrong.

When they say that this will change the legal system forever. Nope they very wrong. This is asserting principles that stretch back about 800 years at least. There is nothing new about this case, really, legally. And most importantly, you can still “believe” someone’s evidence...

without returning a guilty verdict. That is the duality that criminal lawyers philosophically inhabit. That is why Bret Walkers SC submission is correct, true and legally sound. A person can b believed, but it’s not about believing, it is about whether the law was applied soundly

The jury isn’t “better” than the HCA. It is ONLY about the

! That is all the HCA has to look for. All the defence have to establish. Beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard known to law. I can’t even say beyond reasonable doubt what I had for lunch two weeks ago.

So please don’t call me a “Pell defender”. I am a defender. It’s what I do. This is not a thunderous shift in the tectonics of justice. It’s just another case. Basic civics lesson over. Thread over.

Latest Threads Unrolled: