George Pell may be free, but he’s not the only one on trial
George Pell may be a free man, but the ruling is more likely to impact on the way people view the Victorian legal system rather than how they see the Cardinal himself, writes Susie O’Brien.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Cardinal George Pell may be a free man, but most people still don’t think he’s innocent. Tuesday’s shock High Court ruling is unlikely to change the way he’s viewed by a majority of the public. But the ruling will have a profound impact on the way people view the Victorian legal system.
The High Court ruled the two majority judges from the Court of Appeal incorrectly applied legal principals when forming their decision about Pell’s abuse of two young boys. They say the judges relied too heavily on the evidence of the sole abuse survivor and not enough on the other witnesses who said the abuse could not have occurred.
The seven-member High Court says there should have been sufficient doubt about Pell’s guilt on the basis of the evidence. They say there is a “a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof”.
It’s a strongly-worded statement which is a grave indictment of the Victorian legal system. How could this happen? Let’s remember Pell has been found guilty by a 12-member County Court jury, and this finding was upheld by the Court of Appeal by a majority of two judges.
The jury found Pell guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of sexual penetration of a child and four indecent act charges. They believed the surviving abuse victim and they did not believe Pell and other witnesses who said the abuse could not have taken place.
The jury’s deliberations were prolonged and thoughtful and upheld by two senior Court of Appeal judges. Indeed, Chief Judge Peter Kidd from the Country Court described Pell’s attack on the two boys as brutal, callous, brazen and blatant.
To have all of this evidence, conclusions and deliberations thrown in doubt years later is almost unthinkable. Something very wrong has happened, and it’s up to more considered minds than mine to work out how, what and why.
What worries me is that this ruling will scare off other sexual abuse victims from making claims against the church. I desperately hope this is not the case.
The public’s lack of faith in George Pell’s innocence reflects the Catholic Church’s disgraceful treatment of sexual abuse victims over many decades.
The church, led by Pell, spent years ignoring allegations against its priests, often moving perpetrators around to get rid of the problem. In cases where criminal charges were laid, victims were made to fight for paltry settlements and forced to sign confidentiality agreements stopping them from telling their stories.
In court the church rarely supported guilty pleas, making victims fight for every shred of justice that came their way. A lack of transparency in the legal system helped hide the church’s actions from view, which further deterred claimants from coming forward.
The ruling comes as new claims against Pell emerge, with more expected after the release of the Royal Commission documents relevant to him. Some are claiming they were abused by Pell. Others say he knew of sexual abuse committed by others in the church but did nothing to stop it.
Pell is now holed up in a Catholic monastery in Kew and will spend the rest of his days fighting to clear his name. He is unlikely to ever again play a key role in the church, or to be held in high esteem by Catholics or the general public. Despite what the High Court says, he’s a long way from being seen as an innocent man.
WHY I’LL STILL TAKE MY TEEN DRIVING DURING LOCKDOWN