Quash

Quash (pronounced kwosh)

(1) To put down or suppress completely; quell; subdue; used usually in a military or paramilitary context.

(2) To make void, annul, or set aside (a law, indictment, decision etc); to reject (an indictment, writ, etc) as invalid.

(3) To crush or dash to pieces (obsolete and thought possibly an imperfect echoic of squash).

(4) In the civil procedure rules of US courts (as motion to quash), a specific request that asks the court to render the decision of a previous lower court ruling invalid.  It is similar to a motion to dismiss, except it asks the court to nullify a previous ruling rather than the current filing.

Circa 1275: From the Middle English quaschen, quasshen, cwessen, & quassen (to smash, break, overcome, suppress) from the Old French quasser, in part from the Latin quassāre (to shake), present active infinitive of quassō, frequentative of quatere (to shake) and in part from the Late Latin cassāre (to annul), a derivative of the Latin cassus (empty, void) under the influence of the Alatin cassō (I annul), from the Latin quatiō (I shake).  Ultimate root was the primitive Indo-European kweht- (to shake), the source also of the words pasta, paste, pastiche, pastry; cognate with Spanish quejar (to complain).  Similar to some degree are suppress, squash, repress, crush, quell, invalidate, annul, revoke, reverse, veto, void, undo, vacate, squelch, repeal, overrule, rescind, scrunch, annihilate and subdue.  Regarding quash and squash, the verb quash is now used to describe the crushing of something in a nonphysical sense whereas squash is applied when an object is physically crushed but both were for hundreds of years used in both senses, quash losing its physical sense only in the twentieth century.  Urban Dictionary also lists a number of non-standard meanings.  Quash & quashed are verbs, quasher is a noun, quashing is a noun & verb and quashable is an adjective; the most common noun plural is quashings.

In the matter of Cardinal Pell

Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023): On appeal, the prosecution not having proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction was quashed.

Quash means to nullify, void or declare invalid and is a procedure used in both criminal and civil cases when irregularities or procedural defects are found.  In a unanimous (7-0) judgment (Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12)) quashing Cardinal Pell’s conviction (Pell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 186), the High Court set aside the verdict and substituted an acquittal; in a legal sense it is now as if the original verdict never happened.  What the court did was declare existing law and provide what are not exactly parameters but are more than guidelines.  If nothing else, it’s likely the judgment will cause trial judges more precisely to instruct juries about reasonable doubt:

(1) The accused on trial in a serious criminal matter is presumed to be innocent.

(2) The accused may but is not obliged to offer a defense; it is incumbent upon the prosecution (almost always the state) to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused.

There’s nothing controversial about those positions, they’ve well known and have for centuries been accepted orthodoxies for the administration of criminal law in common law jurisdictions.  What the Pell judgment did was draw attention to other orthodoxies not as widely known:

(3) A jury is presumed to be comprised of reasonable people who impartially will assess the evidence (contested facts) presented; matters of contested facts are subjective and for the jury.

(4) It is the responsibility of the judge accurately and lucidly to instruct the jury on such matters of law which may be relevant to their consideration of matters of fact; matters of law are objective and for the judge.

Reasonable people on juries are thus required to decide if there is a reasonable doubt the prosecution’s case has proven guilt.  Reasonable doubt went back a long way but the phrase “reasonable person” was defined by English courts in negligence cases, an attempt to provide an example of the “the average man” or “the man in the street”.  Descriptions by judges vary but usually mean something like a “…reasonably intelligent and impartial person unversed in legal esoteric” (Jones v US, DC Court of Appeals), sketched rather more poetically by an English judge as “the man on the Clapham omnibus” (“a bloke on the Hornsby train” in Australian parlance).

(5) In exercising their subjective judgment to determine if the prosecution has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt, the jury is required to decide this on the objective basis of reasonable doubt detailed in the judge’s direction or summing up.

(6) If a court of appeal found a jury, acting reasonably, on the basis of the evidence presented, should have found reasonable doubt of guilt, the judge(s) can order the conviction quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered instead.

Not only verdicts can be quashed.  If within their jurisdiction, a judge can quash a warrant or order.

Asseveration

Asseveration (pronounced uh-sev-uh-rey-shuhn)

(1) A vehement assertion, emphatic affirmation or asseveration; vehemence, rigor.

(2) The act of asseverating.

(3) In the technical rules of grammar, a word of emphasis (a rare form, used only by scholars using the word in the sense it was used in Latin).

1550–1560: From the Middle English asseveration (an emphatic assertion), from the Classical Latin asseverationem (nominative asseveratio) (vehement assertion, protestation), the construct being ad- (to) + severus (serious, grave, strict, austere) which was probably from the primitive Indo-European root segh- (to have, hold) on the model of "steadfastness, toughness".  The Latin assevērātiōn (stem of assevērātiō, from assevērō), (vehement assertion, protestation) was the noun of action from past participle stem of asseverare.  Asseveration is a noun, asseverate & assever are verbs; the noun plural is asseverations.

Asseverations: some stay and some go

Mr Abbott at Cardinal Pell's requiem mass, Saint Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney, Australia, 1 February 2023.

Asseverations are sometime heat of the moment things and later (something quickly) withdrawn as calmer thoughts intrude or wiser counsels prevail though not always.  Almost immediately the Holy See announced the death of Cardinal George Pell (1941—2023), noted Roman Catholic layman Tony Abbott (b 1957; Australian prime-minister 2013-2015) felt moved to praise him as “…an ecclesiastical and cultural conservative…” whose “…incarceration on charges the High Court ultimately scathingly dismissed was a modern form of crucifixion…” and his “…prison journals should become a classic: a fine man wrestling with a cruel fate and trying to make sense of the unfairness of suffering.  In his own way, by dealing so equably with a monstrous allegation, he strikes me a saint of our times.  Like everyone who knew him, I feel a deep sense of loss but am confident that his reputation will grow and grow that he will become an inspiration for the ages.”

Mourners queue to enter the cathedral.

So polarizing a figure was Pell that it’s doubtful Mr Abbott’s thoughts much influenced anyone (one way or the other) but there were those who thought he might retreat a little on the matter of good Saint George.  He didn’t and at the cardinal’s requiem mass doubled down and asseverated further, eulogizing Pell as “the greatest man I’ve ever known”, observing he was “one of our country’s greatest sons”, a “great hero” and a “saint for our times”.  To those familiar with the findings of the five-year royal commission into child sexual abuse and the criticism of the legal devices Pell set up in both Melbourne & Sydney which operated to limit the Church’s financial liability in such matters, Mr Abbott’s words must have seemed at least hyperbolic but the former prime-minister made no mention of the commission’s findings, preferring to dwell on those of the High Court of Australia (HCA) which, on appeal, unanimously (7-0) quashed the finding of a jury (upheld on a first appeal) that Pell had committed an act of sexual abuse against a minor.  Not only did Mr Abbott praise the decision to quash the conviction (on the grounds the prosecution had not beyond reasonable doubt proved the offence took place, as described, in the place, at the time alleged) but damned even then charges being laid, saying: “He should not have been charged in the absence of corroborating evidence and should never have been convicted in the absence of a plausible case, as the HCA so resoundingly made plain”, adding the cardinal had been “made a scapegoat for the church itself”.  To clarify just why Saint George it should be, he praised especially Pell’s ability to accept this “modern-day crucifixion” which was the “heroic virtue that makes him to my mind, a saint for our times”.  So the example of the late cardinal might continue to inspire others, Mr Abbott called for “Pell study courses, Pell spirituality courses, Pell lectures, Pell high schools and Pell university colleges, just as there are for the other saints” concluding that: “The ultimately triumphant life of this soldier for truth to advance through smear and doubt to victory should drive a renewal of confidence throughout the Universal Church”.  Presumably, Mr Abbott’s line of Saint George Pell T-shirts, baseball caps and swimming trunks can’t be far off.

Not all who turned up agreed with Mr Abbott.

Harvey Weinstein heading for court.

Some asseverations however quickly are deleted as the reaction makes clear what seemed at the time a good idea might need to be reconsidered.  However, in the age of Twitter and Instagram, totally to delete something is at least difficult and often impossible.  In 2017, as a twitterstorm flared around about the sexual assault allegations against film produced Harvey Weinstein (b 1952), a sympathetic Lindsay Lohan took to Instagram saying she was “feeling bad” for Weinstein and chastised his estranged wife, Georgina Chapman, for announcing she was leaving him.  “He's never harmed me or did anything to me—we've done several movies together” Ms Lohan added, concluding “I think everyone needs to stop—I think it's wrong. So stand up”.  The posts were soon deleted and in an attempt to calm the controversy they engendered, she issued a statement in which she said: “I am saddened to hear about the allegations against my former colleague Harvey Weinstein.  As someone who has lived their life in the public eye, I feel that allegations should always be made to the authorities and not played out in the media”.  In a final public atonement, she added: “I encourage all women who believe Harvey harmed them to report their experiences to the relevant authorities”.  Weinstein was later quoted as saying:  “I’m not doing OK, but I’m trying. I gotta get help, we all make mistakes.  Second chance, I hope.”

Regalia

Regalia (pronounced ri-gey-lee-uh or ri-geyl-yuh)

(1) The emblems, symbols, or paraphernalia indicative of royalty or any other sovereign status; such as a crown, orb, sceptre or sword.

(2) The decorations, insignia, or ceremonial clothes of any office or order.

(3) A casual term for fancy, or dressy clothing; finery.

(4) Royal rights, prerogatives and privileges actually enjoyed by any sovereign, regardless of his title (emperor, grand duke etc).

(5) Sumptuous food (obsolete except in the odd literary novel).

(6) A large cigar of the finest quality (obsolete except in the odd literary novel). 

1530–1540: From the Medieval Latin rēgālia (royal privileges; things pertaining to a king), noun use of neuter plural of the Latin rēgālis (regal).  The word stems from the Latin substantivation of the adjective rēgālis, itself from rex (king).  Regalia is a Latin plurale tantum (plural as such, plural only) word that has different definitions. In one ancient (but now rare) definition, it refers to the exclusive privileges of a sovereign, a concept which remains codified in Scots law as Inter regalia (something inherently that belongs to the sovereign) and this may include property, privileges, or prerogatives.  The term is a direct borrowing from the Latin inter (among) and regalia (things of the king).  In Scots law, the division is between (1) regalia majora (major regalia), which are inseparable from the person of the sovereign and (2) regalia minora (minor regalia), which may be conveyed to a subject.  The word originally referred to the formal dress of a sovereign, but is now used of any type of elaborate formal dress or accessories and is applied especially to academic and ecclesiastical robes.  Although regalia is a Latin plurale tantum (plural as such, plural only) which, in the grammar of Latin is a noun (in any specific sense) that has no singular form (eg scissors) in most usage, in Modern English, it’s sometimes used in the singular: regale.  Further to complicate, the plural form of the grammatical descriptor is pluralia tantum.  Regalia is a noun and regalian is an adjective; the noun plural is regalias.

Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023) in ecclesiastical regalia (left) and a deconstruction of the layers (right).  The nature of the garments' layers assumed significance in the matter of the cardinal's trial on charges of sexual abuse of a minor, a discussion about the ease and speed with with "accessibility" was physically possible (within the constraints of time and place) being among the evidence offered in defense.

In his original trial the cardinal was convicted, the verdict upheld on appeal to a full bench of the Court of Appeal.  However, upon final appeal to the High Court of Australia (HCA), the conviction was quashed, the judges ruling that the Crown had not beyond reasonable doubt proved the acts alleged happened as described, in the circumstances, in the place and at the time mentioned in the indictment.  Quash means to nullify, void or declare invalid and is a procedure used in both criminal and civil cases when irregularities or procedural defects are found.  In a unanimous (7-0) judgment (Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12)) quashing Cardinal Pell’s conviction in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Pell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 186), the High Court set aside the verdict and substituted an acquittal; in a legal sense it is now as if the original verdict never happened. 

Lindsay Lohan being adorned with prom queen regalia (Mean Girls (2004)).