George Pell’s lawyers to use ‘unsafe verdict’ as grounds for appeal

Cardinal George Pell’s lawyers will attempt to convince the Court of Appeal that the jury’s verdict was unsafe or unreasonable.

Cardinal George Pell's lawyer Robert Richter QC. Picture: AAP

Cardinal George Pell’s legal team will attempt to convince the Court of Appeal that the jury’s verdict on five sexual assault charges is unsafe or unreasonable.

Robert Richter QC yesterday told the Victorian County Court that he filed an appeal application last week, citing an unreasonable verdict; the objection to Mr ­Richter using an animated ­illustration in his closing argument; and the way the jury was constituted.

According to the Judicial ­College of Victoria, in order to ­uphold Mr Richter’s first ground the Court of Appeal must do its own independent evaluation of the evidence and determine whether the jury could have been satisfied of Pell’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

“The court does not need to ­affirmatively find that the accused is innocent,” the Victorian Criminal Proceedings Manual says.

If the Court of Appeal rejects the unsafe-verdict argument but upholds one of the other grounds, Pell could face a retrial.

Pell is likely to be remanded in custody today but Melbourne Law School’s criminal appeals and procedure expert, Jeremy Gans, said the Court of Appeal could then issue appeal bail.

Professor Gans said that, although, the court would not be influenced by the high-profile nature of the case, if it formed the view there was a good chance of an appeal succeeding, it could release Pell on bail.

He said that, on the face of it, the prosecution case relied on one man’s word that a newly appointed archbishop abused two boys who he had not groomed.

“Not your typical paedophile,” Professor Gans said.

“It seems to me, that combination is something the Court of Appeal will pay close attention to. I don’t think anyone should be surprised if he wins on appeal.”

Pell will face a County Court plea hearing today.

Mr ­Richter is likely to ask Chief Judge Peter Kidd to take into account Pell’s age, low risk of reoffending and the prospect prison will be more onerous on him than most inmates.

Pell was found guilty of one count of sexual penetration with a child aged under 16 and four counts of indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16.

According to Sentencing Advisory Council Data 76.9 per cent of sexual penetration with a child under 16 cases sentenced between 2011 to 2016 resulted in a term of imprisonment, with the remainder handed community correction orders.

A further breakdown of the sentences showed the median ­sentence was 2.71 years with 60 per cent of charges resulting in jail terms of less than three years.

Data comparing the indecent act charge recorded 76.9 per cent of sentences resulted in a term of imprisonment and 10.3 per cent resulting in a community corrections order.

The median sentence was one year with 80.2 per cent of imprisonment terms less than two years.