Pell v The Queen: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

On 22 June 2017, [[Victoria Police]] announced Pell's arrest charges of historical sexual assault.{{Sfnp|Zauzmer|2017}} Pell was accused of sexually assaulting two [[Choirboy|choirboys]] at St. Patrick's Cathedral in East [[Melbourne]] after Mass, shortly after his appointment as Archbishop of Melbourne.{{Sfnp|Bonnor|2020|p=28}} The accusers, known as victims 'A' and 'B', remain unnamed.{{Sfnp|Bonnor|2020|p=28}} B died before the allegations went to court.{{Sfnp|Sullivan|p=22|2019}} Pell was tried twice in the County Court of Victoria and convicted on the second trial.{{Sfnp|Bonnor|2020|p=28}} His appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was rejected.{{Sfnp|Silbert|p=37|2020}}

Line 28:

In both trials, the juries considered several other factors. After mass, A and B were part of a strict procession, and Pell's defence team argued it would be impossible for either to leave this procession without being noticed.{{Sfnp|Cooper|2019}} A witness testified that he introduced Pell to his mother on the steps of the church, which the prosecution condeded if true, meant Pell would not have had the opportunity to commit the sexual abuse of A and B in the first instance.{{Sfnp|Cooper|2019}} The prosecution though, argued Pell may have been left alone for a short period while church aides tended to other duties.{{Sfnp|Cooper|2019}}

The initial trial ended in September 2018 with a [[hung jury]], as they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.{{Sfnp|Cooper|2019}} A second was held in December 2018. Pell was represented by [[Robert Richter (lawyer)|Robert Richter]], who claimed "only a madman" would sexually assault children in the Sacristy after mass given the number of people coming and going from the room.{{Sfnp|Cooper|2019}} The defence team also argued that the church robe worn by Pell, by nature of its design, would have made it impossible for Pell to expose himself. Questions were also raised as to why the choirboys never informed anyone of what happened until A contacted police in 2015. [[Peter Kidd|Judge Kidd]] informed the juries that many sexual abuse victims do not immediately report the abuse, if ever.{{Sfnp|Cooper|2019}} The defence team argued Pell could not have conducted the second alleged act of abuse, submitting that someone would have noticed Pell pushing a small child into a wall.{{Sfnp|Cooper|2019}}. The second jury found Pell guilty of all charges.{{Sfnp|Cooper|2019}}

=== Supreme Court Appeal ===

Pell appealed to the [[Supreme Court of Victoria|Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal]], that the conviction was unreasonable and that the Court should overturn it and find him [[Acquittal|not guilty]] all charges. The appeal was dismissed, with a majority of the Court, consisting of [[Anne Ferguson (judge)|Chief Justice Ferguson]] and [[Chris Maxwell (jurist)|Justice Maxwell]],{{Sfnp|Silbert|p=37|2020}} finding it was open for the jury to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented that Pell was guilty.{{Sfnp|Dyer|Hamer|p=109|2020}}{{Sfnp|Silbert|p=37|2020}}

== High Court appeal ==

[[File:High court of Australia - court 2.jpg|thumb|The [[High Court of Australia]]]]

Pell sought permission from the [[High Court of Australia]] to appeal convictions.{{Sfnp|Silbert|p=37|2020}} The High Court can hear appeals from state courts once it grants permission to do so. This permission, known as "special leave", is considered based on whether the case involves a significant legal question of public importance or if there is a need to address issues affecting the broader administration of justice.{{Sfnp|Stackpoole|2020}} The High Court allowed the appeal without providing a reason for doing so.{{Sfnp|Stackpoole|2020}}

Pell's appeal to the High Court contended that the convictions were unreasonable and lacked sufficient evidence.{{Sfnp|Hemming|2022|p=57}}{{Sfnp|Sullivan|p=22|2019}} To succeed, Pell had to prove that the jury must have had doubt in their minds as to whether he committed the acts for which he was convicted.{{Sfnp|Hemming|2022|p=57}} Pell's argued that based on the totality of the evidence, it was not possible for a jury to find him guilty as accused, and that the majority of the Victorian Court of Appeal erred in law by upholding the verdict.{{Sfnp|Le Grand|2020}}

Seven justices of the High Court unanimously heard the appeal, quashed the convictions, and acquitted Pell of all charges.{{Sfnp|Silbert|p=37|2020}} The High Court ruled that when a court considers an appeal regarding whether a jury verdict is reasonable, it must, by default, assume the alleged victim's evidence as reliable and credible.{{Sfnp|Bonnor|2020|p=28}} The High Court emphasised that such a case always proceeds on the assumption that the ~~complainant’s~~complainant's evidence is credible and reliable and that the appellate court must examine the record to see whether, notwithstanding that assessment, the court is satisfied that the jury acting rationally ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt. To overturn a verdict, that court must then be satisfied that a rational jury would have found there to be a reasonable doubt as to the proof of guilt because of contradictions or deficiencies in the evidence presented at trial.{{Sfnp|Bonnor|2020|p=28}} The High Court emphasised that such a case always proceeds on the assumption that the ~~complainant’s~~complainant's evidence is credible and reliable and that the appellate court must examine the record to see whether, not withstanding that assessment, the court is satisfied that the jury, acting rationally, ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt. The High Court found that the evidence could not have removed all reasonable doubt as to Pell's guilt.{{Sfnp|Bonnor|p=28-29|2020}}

== Reaction==

On 7 April 2020, Pell was freed from [[HM Prison Barwon|Barwon Prison]].{{Sfnp|McKenna|2020}} [[Pope Francis]] of the Vatican stated he "welcome[d] the High Court's uninimous decision" and that he ~~“has~~"has always expressed confidence in the Australian judicial authority.”"{{Sfnp|Albeck-Ripka|Cave|p=|2020}} Shortly after Pell's release, Pope Francis held mass, inviting those present to pray for "all those people who suffer unjust sentences resulting from intransigence [against them]". Without mentioning Pell by name, he compared those suffering unjust persecution with ~~jesus~~Jesus, posting the following to Twitter: "In these days of #Lent, we've been witnessing the persecution that Jesus underwent and how He was judged ferociously, even though He was innocent. Let us #PrayTogether today for all those persons who suffer due to an unjust sentence because of someone had it in for them." {{Sfnp|McKenna|2020}}

Pell released a statement saying he had "no ill will" toward his accuser and that he had "consistently maintained [his] innocence while suffering from a serious injustice...[which was] remedied...with the High Court's unanimous decision".{{Sfnp|McKenna|2020}} The father B was said by his lawyers to be "in shock" and struggling to comprehend the decision. Victoria Police stated it respected the decision and acknowledged the work on the case by investigators.{{Sfnp|McKenna|2020}}

Associate Professor of law Andrew Hemming of the [[University of Southern Queensland]] defended the High Court's decision to overturn Pell's conviction and called it "predictable".{{Sfnp|Hemming|p=75|2022}} He argued that the case involved "compounding improbabilities," key defence evidence, and a "forensic disadvantage" due to the time lapse.{{Sfnp|Hemming|p=75|2022}} Hemming stated that in his view, the "High Court's decision to quash Pell's convictions was the only outcome consistent with justice".{{Sfnp|Hemming|p=74|2022}} A lecturer from the same university, Jeremy Patrick, critiqued Hemming's defence of the decision. He considered that Hemming and the High Court placed excessive weight on the witnesses who testified it was practically impossible for Pell to have committed the offences as he was rarely alone after mass.{{Sfnp|Patrick|p=116-117|2023}} Patrick found the High Court had taken the witness testimony as "gospel", while ignoring possible issues the jury may have had regarding it.{{Sfnp|Patrick|p=117|2023}} Patrick also disagreed with Hemming's support of the High Court finding it was improbable for Pell to have committed the offences, arguing the case should not have discussed what usually happens after ceremonies, or whether altar boys usually sneak into the sacristy. Rather, the jury's role in the case was to evaluate the specific evidence (which Patrick described as compelling), provided by the victim for the instance he ~~tesitified~~testified Pell did have the opportunity to molest him. Patrick argued that applying probabilistic reasoning ~~retrospectivley~~retrospectively to a unique event was a "fool's errand and an exercise in poor reasoning".{{Sfnp|Patrick|p=118|2023}}

''[[The New York Times]]'' viewed the case as illustrating the significant judicial discretion in limiting public oversight and overturning jury verdicts.{{Sfnp|Albeck-Ripka|Cave|p=|2020}} A suppression order prevented journalists from reporting even basic facts of the case as it occurred. While Pell was initially convicted in 2018, this verdict could not be reported on properly for two months until the suppression order was lifted. [[Melbourne Law School]] professor Jason Bosland considers such discretion as prevalent in various aspects of Australian governance.{{Sfnp|Albeck-Ripka|Cave|p=|2020}}

The ''[[The New York Times]]'' viewed the case as illustrating the significant judicial discretion in limiting public oversight and overturning jury verdicts.{{Sfnp|Albeck-Ripka|Cave|p=|2020}} A suppression order prevented journalists from reporting even basic facts of the case as it occured. While Pell was initially convicted in 2018, this verdict could not be reported on properly for two months until the suppression order was lifted. [[Melbourne Law School]] professor Jason Bosland considers such discretion as prevalent in various aspects of Australian governance.{{Sfnp|Albeck-Ripka|Cave|p=|2020}} A second professor from the same law school noted a problem of the case was that "the public mostly couldn't watch". Questions were raised as to whether the public could have been provided access to the case in such a way that the victims identity remained anonymous. Bosland stated: ~~“The~~"The only way the judicial branch of government is held accountable is through principle of open justice, and that requires that the public be given as much information as possible.”"{{Sfnp|Albeck-Ripka|Cave|p=|2020}}

== References ==

Line 64 ⟶ 71:

;News articles

*{{Cite news |last=Albeck-Ripka |first=Livia |last2=Cave |first2=Damien |date=7 April 2020 |title=Cardinal ~~Pell’s~~Pell's Acquittal Was as Opaque as His Sexual Abuse Trial |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/world/australia/cardinal-george-pell-acquittal.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230112225443/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/world/australia/cardinal-george-pell-acquittal.html |archive-date=12 January 2023 |access-date=13 May 2023 |issn=1553-8095}}

*{{Cite news |last=Cooper |first=Adam |date=26 February 2019 |title=The case for and against: What the jury was told in George Pell's trial |work=[[The Age]] |url=https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-case-for-and-against-what-the-jury-was-told-in-george-pell-s-trial-20190226-p510f6.html |access-date=20 September 2023 |issn=0312-6307}}

*{{Cite news |last=Le Grand |first=Chip |date=2020 |title=Pell to walk free after High Court overturns conviction |work=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] |url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/pell-to-walk-free-after-high-court-overturns-conviction-20200407-p54hqe.html |access-date=12 May 2023 |issn=0312-6315}}

Line 73 ⟶ 80:

[[Category:High Court of Australia cases]]

[[Category:2020 in case law]]

[[Category:2020 in Australian law]]

[[Category:Australian criminal law]]