Secular critics get their man in George Pell

Eric Lobbecke

Yesterday was a black day for the Catholic Church and an even darker day for Cardinal George Pell, whose appeal has been denied and who has been returned to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence as a convicted pedophile.

The victims of sexual abuse ­including the complainant no doubt will welcome and celebrate the result but, given the dissenting opinion of Justice Mark Weinberg, the suspicion still exists that justice may not have been fully served.

The sum total of the evidence used to convict Pell relies on the evidence of one complainant who argued he and another choirboy had been sexually abused in 1996 by Pell, who had only recently been appointed as archbishop to Melbourne.

According to the lone survivor (the other boy, who never reported being abused to the police or his mother, had subsequently died), the offences occurred in the ­cathedral’s sacristy after Pell had officiated at a solemn mass and weeks later in one of the cathedral’s corridors.

Two of the judges rejected all of the 13 grounds for appeal put by Pell’s lawyers but there is also the reality that Weinberg, who is an expert in criminal law, concluded the convictions should not stand.

As noted by Chief Justice Anne Ferguson, in his dissenting opinion Weinberg argued “at times the complainant was inclined to embellish aspects of his account” and “his evidence contained discrepancies, displayed inadequacies and otherwise lacked probity value so as to cause him (Weinberg) to have a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt”.

And while the prosecution ­relied on the evidence of only one person, that is the surviving choirboy accusing Pell, Weinberg concluded there were credible wit­nesses arguing the alleged crimes had not been committed.

Weinberg notes “there was a significant body of cogent and in some cases impressive evidence suggesting that the complainant’s account was in a realistic sense ­impossible to accept”, and there was “a significant possibility that the cardinal may not have committed the offences”.

Evidence presented raising doubts about the complainant’s recollection of events included: the sacristy was usually inaccessible except for church officials and celebrants; the recently ­appointed Pell after the end of the service normally thanked parishioners as they left; Pell was always escorted by at least one other church official; and his robes made it physically impossible for him to commit the acts for which he was convicted.

As noted by Father Francis Burns, who has been a celebrant at the cathedral for more than 20 years, “the likelihood of anyone, young or old, wandering into the sacristy area during a ceremony and finding altar wine is, from my experience, non-existent. As is the likelihood of the Archbishop ambling about unaccompanied after mass.”

Such was the questionable ­nature of the evidence presented by the complainant in the first and second trials that crime reporter and author John Silvester also cast doubt on Pell’s conviction.

In The Age newspaper, Sil­vester wrote: “Pell was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness, without forensic evidence, a pattern of behaviour or a confession.”

In addition to the doubts raised by witnesses and those familiar with the layout of the ­cathedral and how Sunday ­masses are organised and managed, there is also the concern that in relation to the legal process Pell has had to endure, the well has been truly poisoned.

For years secular critics have waged a concerted and pervasive campaign against Pell and the Catholic Church. While there is no doubt the church has been guilty of failing to protect children and failing to expose and punish those guilty priests, it’s also true the Catholic Church and Pell have been the victims of a series of vitriolic, hostile attacks.

David Marr, for example, in a YouTube video, describes Pell as a “hard man (who) demanded obedience with the embodiment of the conservative churchman who was going to maintain the glory of his church”. In a comment piece written for Guardian Australia, Marr denigrates Pell for being intransigent, dogmatic and brutal.

Such have been the intensity of the attacks on Pell that Chief Judge Peter Kidd in the second trial and in his sentencing remarks acknowledged Pell had been “publicly vilified” and ­described what occurred outside the court as “a witch-hunt” promoting a “lynch mob mentality”.

One of the tenets underlying our legal system is that not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.

Given the dissenting decision by Weinberg there will always be the suspicion that in Pell’s case justice may not have been done.

Kevin Donnelly is a senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University.