George Pell appeal: Cardinal eyes High Court challenge

George Pell is escorted in handcuffs from the Supreme Court. Picture: AFP.

Cardinal George Pell is eyeing a High Court challenge to his child sex abuse convictions after the ­Victorian Court of Appeal yesterday rejected his bid for freedom and one of the three ­judges questioned the evidence of his ­accuser.

The legal team for the disgraced cardinal is examining wheth­er there are grounds for ­appealing against the decision in the High Court, their last chance to stop Pell serving a minimum three years and eight months in jail.

Pell, 78, failed yesterday in his bid to overturn his convictions for sexually assaulting two teenage choirboys, when the Victorian Court of Appeal split 2-1, the ­majority decision keeping the ­cardinal in jail.

MORE: Chris Merritt writes Judge Weinberg’s dissent almost guarantees the High Court will be asked to re-examine this case | Kevin Donnelly writes secular critics get their man in Pell | Hetty Johnston says at last the voices of victims are not only being heard but believed | John Ferguson says the cardinal is crushed | Inquirer — How all hell broke lose

This means Pell, who has already­ served nearly six months at the Melbourne Assessment Prison, faces months more in jail before he will know whether he will get the final opportunity to try to clear his name in the nation’s highest court.

Two senior judges believed the evidence of Pell’s sole surviving victim, whom a jury found was ­sexually assaulted in a sacristy at St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996 and again at the cathedral the next year while a choirboy.

Chief judge Anne Ferguson said she and Court of Appeal president Chris Maxwell found there was nothing in the victim’s ­account of Pell’s offending that meant the jury must have had a doubt as to the cardinal’s guilt.

“Throughout his evidence (he) came across as someone who was telling the truth,” Chief Justice Ferguson said.

“He did not seek to embellish his evidence or tailor it in a manner favourable to the prosecution.”

WHAT THE JUDGES SAID: Mobile users, click here to see the pdf

The third appeal judge, Mark Weinberg, disagreed, believing Pell should have been acquitted of all charges. Justice Weinberg couldn’t ­exclude the possibility that some of what the man, now in his 30s, had said was concocted.

He said the man’s account of one of the ­alleged sexual assaults took ­“brazenness to new heights”.

“In the present case, there was a significant body of cogent evidence casting serious doubt upon the complainant’s account, both as to credibility and reliability,” he said in a 204-page dissenting judgment. “On occasion, he seemed almost­ to ‘clutch at straws’ in an attempt­ to minimise, or overcome, the obvious inconsistencies between what he had said on earlier occasions, and what the objective evidence clearly showed.”

The Vatican offered qualified support for Pell, declaring late yesterda­y ­ that it would review its position on Australia’s most senior Catholic once all avenues of ­appeal were exhausted.

“As the proceedings continue to develop, the Holy See recalls that the cardinal has always maintained his innocence throughout the judicial process and that it is his right to appeal to the High Court,” the Holy See said.

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference offered support for Pell and the rule of law, ­declaring that all Australians must be equal under it and accept the judgment.

A spokeswoman for Pell said he was “obviously disappointed” with the decision and his legal team would thoroughly examine the judgment to determine whether to make a special leave application to the High Court.

“While noting the 2-1 split ­decision, Cardinal Pell maintains his innocence. We thank his many supporters,’’ she said.

The Court of Appeal failure was embraced by sex abuse survivors. Pell’s surviving victim declared that he wanted an end to the ­ordeal, exacerbated by two trials and an appeal.

He paid tribute to a second choirboy who was abused by Pell and died of a heroin overdose in 2014, and the other complainants who failed to substantiate their cases. Pell was hit in 2017 with 26 charges of abuse from nine complainants.

The choirboy said: “I would like to acknowledge my friend who passed away, the other choirboy, and pay my deep respect to him and his family. I would like to acknowledge the courage of those people who reported to the police.’’

Scott Morrison flagged Pell losing his Order of Australia medal, but the office of Governor-­General David Hurley said a decision on stripping him of the award would be made only when all avenues of appeal were exhausted.

“They’ve rendered their verdict­, and that’s the system of justice in this country and that must be respected,” the Prime Minister said.

“My understanding is that this would result in the stripping­ of the honours that are decided externally to the government.

“That is a process that is done independently, and that of course will now follow.”

The sting in the tail for survivor groups was the dissenting decision by Justice Weinberg, who was critical of the evidence of the choirboy, concluding that there was a significant possibility the crimes weren’t committed.

He added that some of the evidence might have been concocted.

Justice Weinberg, a former commonwealth director of public prosecutions, was highly critical of aspects of the former choirboy’s evidence, saying he at times exag­gerated aspects of his account.

While there was nothing inherently improbable about child sex abuse by senior clergy, the victim’s evidence needed to be examined within the surrounding circumstances, he said.

“In the present case, there was a significant body of cogent evidence casting serious doubt upon the complainant’s account, both as to credibility and reliability,” the judge said.

University of Melbourne law professor Jeremy Gans said Justice­ Weinberg’s 200-plus-page dissenting judgment was signif­icant and would be weighed up by the High Court. He said the High Court could decide whether to ­accept the case by the end of this year, possibly hearing it by the middle of next year.

On the Weinberg judgment, Professor Gans said: “I am pretty sure I’ve never heard of a 200-page dissent in a criminal matter.’’