Criticism of judges who upheld Pell conviction ‘disgraceful’, judiciary body says

The association that represents the nation’s judiciary rejects criticism of the two judges who upheld George Pell’s wrongful conviction.

President of the Court of Appeal Justice Chris Maxwell, Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Justice Mark Weinberg in 2019.

The two judges of the Victorian Court of Appeal who upheld George Pell’s wrongful conviction have been strongly defended by the professional association that represents the nation’s judiciary.

The Judicial Conference of Australia says some of the criticism of Victorian Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Court of Appeal president Chris Maxwell has been disgraceful.

In an article published on The Australian’s website JCA president Judith Kelly rejects criticism of the two judges contained in several commentaries after the High Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal’s rejection of Cardinal Pell’s appeal against his conviction for assaulting choirboys.

“Many of the recent plethora of articles have decried ‘the media driven frenzy’ and ‘the lynch mob mentality’ of some sectors of the media who were ‘out to get Pell’,” Justice Kelly writes.

“It is just as disgraceful for some in the media to be baying for the blood of the majority judges on the Court of Appeal,” her article says.

The High Court last week unanimously overturned the joint judgment of Chief Justice Ferguson and Justice Maxwell and ordered that the cardinal should be acquitted.

He was freed from prison the same day, ending 405 days of incarceration that had mostly been spent in solitary confinement.

The High Court ruled that the unchallenged evidence of defence witnesses was inconsistent with the unsupported allegations of a man who said he had been assaulted. This, according to the High Court, should have raised a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case.

Justice Kelly singles out commentaries in The Australian by John Ferguson and Paul Kelly and The Herald-Sun by former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett who had urged Chief Justice Ferguson and Justice Maxwell to resign.

Justice Kelly’s article says appointments to judicial office have traditionally been made solely on the basis of professional criteria that include expertise, analytical ability and a demonstrated capacity for sustained hard work.

“There is nothing in the High Court decision in the Pell case to suggest that the majority judges on the Court of Appeal are wanting in any of these qualities,” Justice Kelly writes.