High Court decision on George Pell is extraordinary but sensible

George Pell has been granted leave to appeal. Picture; AP.

George Pell has reason to be cautiously optimistic for the first time since his date with the Court of Appeal.

The High Court development has given him some hope that his incarceration will be truncated and that he gets a form of legal absolution that enables him to build a narrative of vindication.

But until then, he remains a convicted pedophile.

READ MORE: Way clear for Pell rethink | Pell granted leave to appeal conviction | Explainer: What today’s ruling means for Pell | Prosecutors respond to appeal bid | System of justice on trial | ‘Onus of proof reversed’ | Vatican must act decisively | The new barbie stopper | Pope faces ‘captain’s call’ | Anti-Pell pile-one has its day | Brilliant minds couldn’t agree

Team Pell has cast aside the sense of profound confidence about his case that pervaded the passage of the charges through the Magistrate and County Courts.

There is a sense of weariness about the process that has shattered that initial confidence.

The High Court’s nuanced position on the appeal is reasonable and sensible, creating the opportunity for the convictions to face further scrutiny but with absolutely no guarantees for the cardinal.

While it has not always been obvious, there are two sides to this story.

The first is that the complainant in the cathedral matters was so compelling that his accusations have survived the test of three courts.

And yet, detached analysis of what Pell was convicted of raises serious questions about whether or not he actually could have offended.

Most significantly, could Pell have offended beyond reasonable doubt?

In the Court of Appeal, Justice Mark Weinberg raised significant questions about the convictions in the two to one split decision.

Legal insiders have described the Weinberg judgment as an effective letter to the High Court, urging it to seriously examine the Pell convictions.

Weinberg was the criminal expert on the Court Of Appeal.

This may or may not have been what fuelled today’s High Court decision.

The High Court, by agreeing to consider the matter next year, has simply enhanced the standing of the legal system, with potentially profound implications for child sex abuse cases.

After all, Pell was convicted on the word of one altar boy in what many believe are unlikely circumstances.

Stripping away the venom of the culture wars, it has always been possible that Pell offended.

The decision of the three courts tends to confirm this.

However, was it beyond reasonable doubt, based on the evidence, that Pell assaulted the boys in those circumstances?

This is why the High Court’s decision to look next year at the case should be seen as a welcome development.