George Pell committal: Journalist denies trying to ‘poison public mind’

ABC journalist Louise Milligan denies her book on Cardinal George Pell was a ‘pre-­judgment of guilt’.

Journalist Louise Milligan. Picture: Stuart McEvoy.

ABC journalist Louise Milligan has come under attack from ­George Pell’s high-powered legal team in a day of cross-examination that saw her accused of the “character assassination” of the cardinal and distorting the truth to “poison the public’s mind” against him.

Over nearly five hours of questioning, Robert Richter QC, for Cardinal Pell, accused Milligan of failing to properly check the veracity of alleged victims’ stories and omitting information that could discredit or weaken their accounts.

He said Milligan had worked to “poison the public’s mind” against the cardinal and “distorted” the information contained in her reports on the ABC’s 7.30 and her book Cardinal: the Rise and Fall of ­George Pell, for which she won a Walkley Award.

Milligan vehemently rejected Mr Richter’s assertions, saying she “did not distort” the facts and did not set out on the story believing Cardinal Pell had committed sexual offences.

She denied Mr Richter’s assertion her book was a “pre-­judgment of guilt” and said she was very fair to her subject.

Cardinal Pell was charged last June with historical sexual offences against multiple complainants. He denies the charges.

A magistrate is conducting a committal hearing to determine whether the case should go to trial.

Milligan presented a report on Cardinal Pell on the 7.30 program in 2016 which aired allegations against him, including alleged offending at a regional swimming pool.

Yesterday the court heard Milligan had a man’s police statement when she interviewed him and there were differences between what he told her and what he had previously told the police.

“What you did was to try and reconcile things by omitting from (the) 7.30 report and your book things that would damage the credibility of [the accuser],” Mr Richter said.

“I reject that,” Milligan said. “I was advised by queen’s counsel and management that the appropriate way to run the story was how we ran it.”

Mr Richter questioned whether Milligan had told the public about the accuser’s “blemishes”, including time spent in a psychiatric hospital and the extent of his criminal history, and accused her of putting “spin” on the story.

“She distorted what went to the public, she distorted it even more so in her book so as to poison the public mind,” he said.

“I did not distort,” Milligan responded.

Milligan said she came to the story with an open mind and did not set out believing Cardinal Pell had committed sexual offences.

“The day that the story broke in the Herald Sun I was annoyed because it was a Saturday and I was asked to go and do this story and I did not believe it and I came to it from a very sceptical view,” she said.

Mr Richter said Milligan was there to try to persuade the public to believe the accusers’ accounts.

“I was there to present their story,” Milligan replied.

The court heard the man was questioned in closed court about whether he believed he told Milligan the truth.

“I don’t know what I believed at the time, to be honest,” the man testified. “I told her I was in the middle of a meltdown.”

Cardinal George Pell. Picture: AAP.

Milligan said she didn’t recall his telling her of a meltdown.

Milligan’s book was released shortly before Cardinal Pell was charged.

“Your book was intended to pervert the course of justice, was it not?” Mr Richter said.

Milligan denied she set out to get the public to believe the alleged victims.

“One of the ways you were trying to get the public to believe was by blackening and character ­assas­s­ination of Cardinal Pell,” Mr Richter said.

“I disagree entirely,” Milligan said.

Mr Richter said Milligan’s book had made reference to Cardinal Pell residing in a Ballarat presbytery with notorious pedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale.

“I actually brought it up in fairness to Cardinal Pell,” Milligan said.

With Cardinal Pell less than two metres behind him, Mr Richter peppered Milligan with questions about her professionalism, accusing her of selective reporting and failing to do enough checks to ensure accuracy.

Each assertion was denied by Milligan.

The court heard Milligan referred in her book to Cardinal Pell attending pedophile priest Nazareno Fasciale’s funeral and claimed Fasciale had exposed himself to one of Pell’s accusers.

Milligan said she believed the information was true at the time but had since learned the alleged victim accused another priest of the offence.

Milligan frequently invoked her professional pledge of confidentiality to sources to limit cross- examination on key issues relating to the case.

She emphatically denied publishing material about one alleged victim without the consent of the victim’s mother.

The mother last week told the court she withdrew consent for the interview but that this was ignored. Milligan stridently rejected this.

“I say the way those questions were asked was ambiguous and that is not the way it happened,” Milligan said.

Milligan also said she had “absolutely no idea whatsoever’’ that police were planning to charge Cardinal Pell with historical sex offences in June last year.

She said it was publisher Louise Adler’s decision to bring forward the publishing of her book.

The hearing continues.