I am reading the abstracts as you suggested, and this one seems especially relevant to what I'm trying to research:

In the aftermath of the High Court’s decision in Pell v The Queen to quash the
guilty verdicts and enter verdicts of acquittal in their place, there has been
considerable public discussion and academic commentary on the respective
roles of the jury and appellate courts, with particular focus on the jury as the
tribunal of fact. Pell v The Queen was a high-profile case involving sexual
assault charges against a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, when just a
year earlier the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual
Abuse had published its final report which was dominated by abuses
perpetrated in the Roman Catholic Church. This article considers the test for
the unreasonableness ground of appeal set out by the High Court in M v The
Queen, which is reflected in s 276(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009
(Vic), whether ‘upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty’; and concludes
that the High Court was correct to adopt Weinberg JA’s dissenting judgment in
the Victorian Court of Appeal which in the author’s view was compelling.

Could you explain what it means in simpler terms? And do you think the subject matter of the article might be inappropriate for me?
spam lang_mismatch pii not_appropriate hate_speech sexual_content quality toxicity humor creativity violence