Justice at last for a decent man

Justice has prevailed at last for Cardinal George Pell. The outrageous persecution of a good and decent Australian — the first prelate to attempt to address sexual abuse by the clergy, with his Melbourne Response in 1996 — is over, at least as far as the criminal law is concerned.

The media gave maximum exposure to Pell’s troubled accuser, the police pursued fanciful claims and the juries were poorly instructed. It remains a matter of gross incredulity that two Victorian Court of Appeal justices could not see the imperative for reasonable doubt in this case.

The High Court has reversed the greatest injustice in Australia since the persecution of Michael and Lindy Chamberlain, interestingly another case affected by religious bigotry.

Peter Curtis, Werribee South, Vic

It is a very serious matter to have accused George Pell of a crime the law says he could not have committed. Victorian law says a complainant’s identity is to be kept secret, so Pell’s accuser will be spared the notoriety that Pell has had to endure as a result of his claims.

How is it that apparently learned legal people considered a prosecution based on the evidence of just one person a worthy pursuit? Since when has the believability of a witness been a substitute for corroboration to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? And what about the evidence of the opportunity witnesses that was inconsistent with or cast doubt on the complainant’s version, which the High Court said the Victorian Court of Appeal majority “failed to engage with”?

How did these simple principles escape the attention of the trial judge? And two appeal judges as well?

Pell’s first jury trial failed to reach a verdict, so why the second trial?

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews pronounced, shortly after Pell appealed, that he had received a fair trial. Hasn’t he heard of the separation of powers?

For sure, no institution should be allowed to avoid the penalties due for the heinous crimes committed against the young while in its care, but however intense the feeling against these institutions, there is no excuse for allowing a lynch-mob mentality to corrupt the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With Tuesday's High Court ruling, the Victorian judicial system lies under a dark cloud.

Larry Lazarides, Bargara, Qld

While I possess no set religious beliefs, I am sure I am not the only person to feel much relieved to learn justice has finally triumphed in the George Pell sexual abuse case. It was obvious from the outset the trial of Pell was to make him the sacrificial lamb for the evil perpetrated on children by Catholic priests in Australia.

There appeared to be serious flaws in the prosecution of Pell’s court case, which was based on very flimsy evidence; indeed, the dictum of “innocent until proven otherwise” seemed to have completely eluded the presiding judge.

I am sure the release of Pell can to some degree restore faith in our legal system, which should always be devoid of bias and fair for everyone.

Peter Hurdwell, Mount Colah, NSW

At last the law has aligned itself with common sense. I’m delighted at the news of George Pell’s acquittal. A great and good man has been served several brutal injustices. “Reasonable doubt” has never been established in legal matters relating to the cardinal and so there should never have been a conviction; but there was. He will, employing typical graciousness, forgive those who have maligned him. I can only hope the blemish of injustice, a blemish and injustice not of the cardinal’s doing, can somehow be erased.

Perhaps Tom Keneally, who wrote the no doubt profitable Crimes of the Father, and Louise Milligan, author of Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell, could combine their limited talents to try to undo some of the damage they have done.

Reverend Allan G. Ansell, Belmont, Vic

The rare and unanimous decision of the High Court to uphold George Pell’s appeal raises serious questions about trial by jury in Victoria. Victoria is the only state that does not permit the option of trial by judge alone.

In such a bitterly controversial high-profile case where the accused was the subject of overt hatred in parts of the media over a prolonged period, prospective jurors were always going to be subject to forming pre-trial biased views, one way or the other.

John Bell, Heidelberg, Heights, Vic