Justin Quill: Why George Pell decision will cause outcry from both sides
The High Court’s decision in the Cardinal Pell case will cause outcry from both sides — the first proclaiming his innocence and the other saying he’s guilty, but the ruling actually proves neither, writes Justin Quill.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
There will be outcry over the High Court’s decision in the Cardinal Pell case. Outcry from victims and victims rights groups about Pell walking free yesterday. Outcry from Pell supporters that he was ever charged.
The first group will say he’s guilty. The second will say he is innocent. But the High Court found neither. What the High Court decided can be seen from the second sentence of the decision summary. It reads: “The High Court found that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the [Pell’s] guilt”.
The High Court did not find Pell innocent as some commentators have suggested. Sure Pell gets to walk free from these charges, but that doesn’t mean the Court found the victim was lying or that Pell was telling the truth – only that the jury should have found there was about reasonable doubt Pell was guilty.
It was the “opportunity witnesses” that convinced the High Court the jury should have had reasonable doubt. That is, the High Court said doubt should have arisen from the witnesses who gave evidence about 1) Pell greeting parishioners at the front of the church, 2) that Pell was required to be accompanied at all times and 3) about the traffic in the relevant areas of the Cathedral where the alleged offences were said to have occurred.
So this won’t have ramifications for the Victorian judicial system. It doesn’t mean the system has some systemic failing. But don’t doubt the enormity of the decision. Australia’s judicial system hasn’t been under scrutiny like this since Lindy Chamberlain was found guilty and imprisoned for the first half of the 1980s until her release in 1986. Of course, unlike Pell, Lindy’s appeal to the High Court was dismissed. I’m not sure we’ll see a movie made of the Pell case with as famous a line as Meryl Streep’s, “The dingo took my baby”, but make no mistake, the world’s attention is on the Australian judicial system and this decision. In ordinary times, I would expect yesterday’s High Court decision to lead news bulletins and cover front pages right the way around the world. But these are no ordinary times and so the decision won’t get anywhere near the coverage it otherwise would have. But that makes it no less momentous.
The vast majority of cases – about 80 per cent – don’t even receive special leave (permission) to appeal to the High Court let alone win the actual appeal. Pell did both of those things yesterday. He received leave and won his appeal in one decision.
But while the odds may have been against him, it’s important to mention that this case has been on a knife’s edge since it’s inception. Presumably the Victorian DPP agonised over her decision to proceed with charges against Pell. Then we had a hung jury – meaning some thought he was guilty and some didn’t – which required a second trial. The second jury found him guilty. Then the Victorian Court of Appeal found against Pell – but in a 2 to 1 split. So only one judge away from Pell being acquitted. So until yesterday Pell’s guilt was on a knife’s edge. I don’t know whether Pell is guilty or innocent. I’m not even certain whether the High Court got the decision legally right or wrong. But I’m glad the High Court gave us certainty with a unanimous decision and only one judgement. In theory, we could have had 7 different judgements with some dissenting from the ultimate decision. That would have created more uncertainty and confusion. At least we got clarity and finality with the decision.
Justin Quill is a media lawyer with Macpherson Kelley Lawyers