Pell’s referees right to speak up

Unlike his leader and others, Labor’s legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus QC showed his expertise yesterday when he defended John Howard’s right to provide a character reference for Cardinal George Pell. As Mr Dreyfus said, judges are entitled to take into account the good works of convicted persons facing sentencing: “If they are assisted by some other people in the community or perhaps respected members of the community coming forward and saying ‘this is what I know of the convicted man’, then that’s all to the good but it’s a personal matter.’’

Mr Dreyfus’s pertinent explanation contrasted with the abysmal ignorance of Bill Shorten, who said Mr Howard had made an “error of judgment”, and opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong, who said Mr Howard’s character assessment was an “untenable error of judgment”. Labor senators Kristina Keneally and Murray Watt and Greens leader Richard Di Natale also showed little understanding of the use of character references and scant regard for free expression. Senator Di Natale claimed Mr Howard’s reference said “much more about the former PM’s character than it does about the convicted pedophile’’. And in a pharisaic display of wishful thinking, Senator Watt called on Scott Morrison to make it clear Mr Howard was “no longer welcome on the campaign trail’’ because he had been prepared “to back a convicted child rapist’’. Senator Keneally claimed, erroneously, that Mr Howard was “substituting his judgment’’ for that of the 12 citizens on the jury that convicted Pell, risking “confidence in the jury system’’.

Far from disrespecting the jury, as Senator Keneally claimed, Mr Howard’s reference acknowledged that the cardinal had been convicted of the charges, that an appeal had been lodged and that he maintains his innocence. None of those matters, Mr Howard said, had altered his opinion of the cardinal, whom he had known for 30 years as a person of strength and sincerity, of “high intelligence and exemplary character … lacking hypocrisy and cant’’. Pell had frequently displayed “much courage’’ and held to his values and beliefs, Mr Howard said, irrespective of the prevailing wisdom of the time.

Mr Howard, like any citizen, is entitled to speak his mind, as are the other nine character witnesses whose references were tendered to Victorian County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd. Other referees included Australian Catholic University vice-chancellor Greg Craven; Sue Buckingham, the founder of religious group David’s Place, which helps homeless and disabled people; and Elsie Heiss, the former co-ordinator of the Aboriginal Catholic Ministry.

As Deakin University associate law professor Theo Alexander says in today’s news pages, those sniping at Pell’s referees have displayed an ignorance of the sentencing process. Such references, as he says, attest to offenders’ characters based on the experience of referees, who are not called upon to make an assessment of the crime in question or the qualities that the crime might suggest.

In attempting to make political mileage from those who acted in good faith in expressing their personal views about Pell, senior Labor figures and the Greens have besmirched a well-established aspect of the sentencing process. They should know better.