How chief judge decided George Pell’s fate

Chief judge Peter Kidd was always going to face scrutiny for the sentence he was to hand down to George Pell. And sure enough, in the hours that followed, the jail term was criticised as both too lenient, and too harsh. Here’s how the disgraced Cardinal’s sentence was decided.

Chief judge Peter Kidd knew the sentence he handed George Pell would come under much scrutiny.

Already it has been criticised as both too lenient, and too harsh.

But in detailed, methodical and clear reasons, he outlined his decision as bound by the rule of law.

Under Victorian law, the chief judge was required to take into account just punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community in sentencing.

PELL JAILED BUT ‘NO REST’ FOR VICTIM AS APPEAL LOOMS

PELL’S COSTLY FALL FROM GRACE

THE VICTIM’S STORY, IN OWN WORDS

“When I sentence you, I must do so independently of any outside influences, only upon the evidence before me, and upon established legal principles,” he told Pell.

“This means sentencing without fear or favour.”

He ruled that Pell posed no risk to the community, and therefore rehabilitation, specific deterrence and protection of the community were not factors with which he had to have regard.

Chief judge Peter Kidd reading his sentence of Cardinal George Pell.

And he mitigated his sentence for reasons including Pell’s age, “otherwise blameless life”, and a 22 year delay in him being brought to justice.

But he said those factors had to be balanced against the need for the sentence to properly refley general deterrence, just punishment, and denunciation.

“Those purposes loom large when I come to consider your sentence,” he said.

“The purposes of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are very important in cases involving sexual offences against children.

“As the High Court has said ‘sexual abuse of children by those in authority over them has been revealed as a most serious blight on society.

THE MAN TOUTED AS GEORGE PELL’S GET OUT OF JAIL CARD

Cardinal George Pell is most senior Catholic to be convicted of child sex abuse Picture: Andy Brownbill,

“The sentence I impose must aim to discourage potential offenders by demonstrating to those offenders the grave consequences of violating such laws.”

Chief Judge Kidd also stressed Pell could only be sentenced for the five charges of which he was convicted.

“As I directed the jury who convicted you in this trial, you are not to be made a scapegoat for any failings or perceived failings of the Catholic Church,” he said.

“Nor are you being sentenced for any failure to prevent or report child sexual abuse by other clergy within the Catholic Church. You have not been charged with or convicted of any such conduct or failings.”

The chief judge said sentencing was often simplistically portrayed by some as an easy and uncomplicated task.

Media listen in as Chief Judge Peter Kidd hands down his sentence outside Melbourne County Court. Picture: Michael Dodge

“It is a not a mathematical exercise. This balancing exercise is, inevitably, unique to the specific facts and circumstances of your case. This is what individualised justice demands,” he said.

“As I have endeavoured to show above, some of these factors pull in favour of more lenient sentence, while others pull in favour of a harsher sentence.

“In your case this complexity is exemplified by the fact that on the one hand I must punish and denounce you for this appalling offending; yet, on the other hand, I am conscious of the heavy reality that I am about to sentence you, a man of advanced years, who has led an otherwise blameless life, to a significant period of imprisonment, which will account for a good portion of the balance of your life.”

Protesters stop to watch and listen to the sentencing.

KEY QUOTES FROM CHIEF JUDGE PETER KIDD

1. During the incident (the victims) were crying and sobbing. (They) called out but it was at a level of whimpering and whispering. At some point you told (them) be quiet because they were crying.

2 .In my view, the first episode in the priests’ sacristy involved a brazen and forcible sexual attack upon the two victims. The acts were sexually graphic.

3. There is an added layer of degradation and humiliation that each of your victims must have felt in knowing that their abuse had been witnessed by the other.

4. Your sexual abuse involved multiple different activities and actions. You moved from one victim to the other. Your dialogue with the two victims during the first episode was both purposeful and responsive. You continued to offend, with callous indifference to the victims’ obvious distress and objections. At some point during this episode, you even told your victims to be quiet because they were crying.

5. As to what drove you to offend in such a risky and brazen manner, I infer that, for whatever reason, you were in fact prepared to take on such risks.

Pell may not live to be released from prison.

6. I conclude that your decision to offend was a reasoned, albeit perverted, one and I reach that conclusion to the criminal standard.

7. Another possible reasonable explanation for your preparedness to take on the risk of somebody walking into the sacristy, is that you may also have subjectively believed that, had this occurred, you could control the situation. You may have thought you could control the situation by reason of your authority as Archbishop, whether or not that belief was well founded. Such a state of mind would have been extraordinarily arrogant, but the offending which the jury has found you have engaged in, was on any view, breathtakingly arrogant.

8. The brazenness of your conduct is indicative of your sense of authority and power in relation to the victims.

9. You were the Archbishop of St Patrick’s Cathedral - no less - and you sexually abused two choir boys within that Cathedral. This connection and the depth of the breaches and abuses is self-evident.

10. In my view, your conduct was permeated by staggering arrogance.

11. I make substantial allowance for your good character and otherwise blameless life.

12. I am conscious that the term of imprisonment which I am about to impose upon you carries with it a real, as distinct from theoretical, possibility that you may not live to be released from prison.

[e-mail]

MORE NEWS:

BORCE RISTEVSKI PLEADS GUILTY TO KILLING KAREN

FRESH LEGAL THREAT FOR NIKOLIC

KYLIE PAYS TRIBUTE TO SISTO AT PELLEGRINI’S