Draft:Pell v The Queen

Pell v The Queen was a decision by the High Court of Australia in which the conviction of Cardinal George Pell for sexual offences against a child was overturned..

Pell was found guilty by a jury of sexually penetrating and acting indecently with a child under the age of 16. He appealed the verdict to the Victorian Court of Appeal, a superior court with the ability to overturn the guilty finding, and this appeal was dismissed. The High Court of Australia, the apex court of Australia's legal hierarchy, unanimously rejected the finding of guilt as invalid and acquitted Pell. The High Court determined there was a significant chance Pell was innocent because the evidence used to convict Pell could not establish guilt to the required standard of proof.

Background
On Thursday 22 June 2017, Victoria Police announced Pell had been arrested on charges of historical sexual assault offences, the term used by the Australian legal system to refer to offences committed in the past. Pell was accused of sexually assaulting two choirboys at St. Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne after Mass, soon after Pell had been appointed the Archbishop of Melbourne. The accusers remain unnamed, but were referred to as victims 'A' and 'B'.

County Court Trials
Two trials were held at the County Court of Victoria, where Pell pleaded not guilty to all charges. The prosecutors alleged Pell found A and B drinking wine in the church Sacristy. The prosecution further alleged Pell forced B's head towards his genitalia, and then forced A to fellate him. Pell was then said to have fondled A's genitals while masturbating over the course of five to six minutes. A alleged that approximately one month later, Pell pushed himself against him and touched A's genitals through his choir robes. The key issue at trial was whether A's evidence was credible and reliable. B was now deceased, and had stated to his mother before his death that he had never been sexually abused while a choirboy. The prosecution's case against Pell was wholly dependent on the evidence of A being truthful and reliable.

In both trials, the juries considered a number of issues. After mass, A and B were part of a procession that walked out of the cathedral in a strict formation, from which nobody witnessed A or B leaving. Pell's defence counsel argued it would be impossible for A and B to abscond from the formation without someone noticing. A witness testified that he introduced Pell to his mother on the steps of the church, and the prosecutor conceded that if this had indeed happened, Pell would not have had the opportunity to commit the sexual abuse of A and B in the first alleged instance. Both trials also heard arguments that Pell was never left alone during Sunday mass and that while robed, it was impossible for the first instance of abuse to occur. The prosecutor rebutted this argument by stating that it was possible Pell had been left alone for a short period while church aides tended to other duties.

Pell's barrister at the second trial, Robert Richter, said "only a madman" would sexually assault children in the sacristy after mass given the number of people coming and going from the room. The defence team also argued that the robe worn by Pell, by the very 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, though Judge Peter Kidd informed the juries that many sexual abuse victims do not immediately report the abuse, if ever. 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.

The initial trial ended in September 2018 with a hung jury, as they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. However, during a retrial in December 2018, a second jury found Pell guilty of all the charges.

Supreme Court Appeal
Pell appealed to the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal, arguing it was unreasonable for the jury to convict him and that the Court should overturn the convictions and acquit him of all charges. The appeal was dismissed, with a majority of the Court, consisting of Chief Justice Ferguson and Justice Christopher Maxwell, it was open for the jury to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented that Pell was guilty.

High Court appeal
Pell sought permission from the High Court of Australia to overturn his convictions. Pell's argument before the High Court was 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.

Seven justices of the High Court unanimously decided to hear the appeal, quash the convictions, and acquit Pell of all charges. 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.The High Court emphasised that such a case always proceeds on the assumption that the 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.The High Court emphasised that such a case always proceeds on the assumption that the 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.

Aftermath
Legal experts opined the case revealed the extent to which Australian judges have discretion to suppress public oversight and overturn jury verdicts, with a professor of law at the University of Melbourne telling The New York Times "It's endemic to various areas in the landscape of Australian governance".