High Court throws George Pell sex abuse appeal lifeline

Lawyers for George Pell will appear before the full bench of the High Court next year in a final bid to overturn his conviction.

George Pell at the Victorian County Court in February. Picture: David Geraghty

Lawyers for Cardinal George Pell will appear before the full bench of the High Court early next year in a final bid to overturn his conviction for historical child sex offences.

Judges Michelle Gordon and James Edelman on Tuesday referred Pell’s application for special leave to appeal to the full court for argument “as on an appeal”.

Either five or seven of the judges will hear arguments, likely in March or April, as to why leave should be granted and the substantive appeal.

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, welcomed the High Court decision.

“The cardinal has always maintained his innocence and continues to do so, and the divided judgment of the Court of Appeal reflects the divided opinion amongst jurors, legal commentators and within our community,” he said in a statement.

READ MORE: George Pell may seek bail ahead of High Court hearing | John Ferguson writes: Decision extraordinary but sensible | Explainer: What Wednesday’s ruling means for Pell | 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

“Many questions remain, and it is appropriate that these will be ­examined by our highest court.

“For the sake of all involved in this case, I hope that the appeal will be heard as soon as possible.”

Australian Catholic Bishops Conference president Mark Coleridge said he hoped the High Court could bring clarity to the subject.

“All Australians have the right to appeal a conviction to the High Court. Cardinal George Pell has exercised that right, and the High Court has determined that his conviction warrants its consideration,” he said.

“This will prolong what has been a lengthy and difficult process, but we can only hope that the appeal will be heard as soon as reasonably possible and that the High Court’s judgment will bring clarity and a resolution for all.”

The former choirboy at the centre of the allegations against Pell, and whose evidence was key to the conviction, understood that the appeal was part of the legal process, his lawyer Vivian Waller said. “He understands it has to happen, but his preference would be that it’s over,” she said.

 

A spokesperson for Pell has refused to comment on the High Court’s decision.

‘This matter is now still before the court and so we are unable to comment,” the spokesperson said.

Melbourne barrister Daniel Gurvich QC said if the High Court chose not to hear the appeal or ultimately rejected it, it was likely to be the end of the road for Pell.

He said it would be difficult to predict the outcome of the hearing but “there was always hope” when the Court of Appeal was split 2-1.

Mr Gurvich, who chairs the Criminal Bar Association of Victoria, said Pell could potentially make a petition for mercy if the High Court upheld the verdict, but would need some sort of fresh ­evidence.

Former prosecutor Nick Papas QC also warned against predicting the outcome of the appeal based on Wednesday’s decision.

“It’s very interesting. It shows there’s a real point to be tried,” he said, adding that the High Court heard a very limited number of cases, which highlighted the important legal principles to be tried in this case, including the strength given to a witness who presents well, which he said may be significant for other sexual assault cases.

Mr Papas said the claim by Pell’s legal team of a reversal of the onus of proof was also important.

In next year’s hearing the High Court can reject the Cardinal’s special leave to appeal application or grant him leave to appeal.

If the court grants Pell leave to appeal, it will then determine whether his appeal case stands up.

If the court grants the appeal, it can order a retrial, an acquittal or send the case back to the Victorian Court of Appeal for consideration.