Well please show some academic honesty and integrity.
First: you should apologise to me for claiming that I didn't quote from the High Court judgement document, when in fact I did.
Second: you should acknowledge that "presumption of innocence" dates back to Roman Law. Where the onus is on the accuser to provide evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
As such; the High Court have ruled that Cardinal Pell's conviction be quashed, therefore Cardinal Pell is now presumed innocent once again.
