Prominent silk Bret Walker SC to represent George Pell at appeal

Prominent Sydney barrister Bret Walker SC is set to represent George Pell at the Court of Appeal later this year.

Bret Walker SC will represent George Pell at the Court of Appeal. Picture: AAP.

Prominent Sydney barrister Bret Walker SC is set to represent George Pell at the Court of Appeal.

Mr Walker has been sought to defend Cardinal Pell when his appeal is heard later this year, probably in several months’ time.

The decision to engage a new silk is standard practice in cases of this kind and Pell’s original team of lawyers who fought the criminal trial will remain to help free the cardinal, sources told The Australian.

His current legal team consists of Robert Richter QC, his junior Ruth Shann and solicitor Paul Galbally who will remain on the cardinal’s case.

All are high profile criminal law specialists.

The appeal will be fought on three grounds; principally, that the jury got it wrong when it convicted Pell over five charges of sexual molestation of two choirboys in 1996 and 1997.

The appeal also will question the way the jury was constituted and the way the jury was barred from watching a defence video that was designed to explain the movements of people in St Patrick’s Cathedral, which is where the jury found the attacks occurred.

George Pell in a police interview in Rome.

Mr Richter, considered the criminal barrister of his generation, last night apologised for referring to George Pell’s most serious charge as “no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case’’.

Mr Richter released a remorseful statement after having faced widespread criticism for using what many perceived to be an inflammatory comment while arguing for a low sentence for Australia’s most senior Catholic.

Complaining of a sleepless night after court on Wednesday, Mr Richter’s apology was effectively an open letter to abuse ­survivors, some of whom were in the County Court to watch Pell being incarcerated.

The comment was made to County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd, who rejected the statement at the time during sentencing submissions, declaring Pell’s ­offences were on a higher, rather than lower, level.

One of the five charges Pell was found guilty of involved oral penetration of a 13-year-old boy.

Mr Richter told the court: “It is, with respect, no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not volunteering or not actively participating.’’

But his statement last night declared that the comment was an error of judgment.

“After spending a sleepless night reflecting upon the terrible choice of a phrase I used in court during the course of a long and stressful process, I offer my sincerest apologies to all who were hurt or offended by it. No offence was intended,’’ Mr Richter said.

“It was not intended to evade the seriousness of what has been done. The seriousness of the crime was acknowledged at the outset by the concession that it merited ­imprisonment.

“In seeking to mitigate sentence I used a wholly inappropriate phrase for which I apologise profusely to all who interpreted it in a way it was never intended.

“It was in no way meant to ­belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse and in retrospect I can see why it caused great offence to many.

“I hope my apology is accepted as sincerely as it is meant and I will never repeat such carelessness in my choice of words which might offend.’’

Pell, 77, is on remand to be ­sentenced this month on five sex ­assault charges involving two choirboys at St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne.

Judge Kidd was unimpressed with the vanilla comment, declaring the Pell attacks to be “callous’’ and “brazen’’, with an “element of brutality’’, flagging any sentence would be on the upper end of the sentencing scale.

Pell has steadfastly maintained his innocence but was found guilty by the jury.

Pell yesterday remained at the Melbourne Assessment Prison, and has received his first visit while he awaits to be sentenced this month.

Victoria’s Chief Commissioner of Police, Graham Ashton, weighed into the debate yesterday, saying that police did not consider sexual crimes against children to be “plain vanilla” offending.

“I think it’s probably a question you’d have to ask a victim of any sexual offending, whether they find that term offensive and I’m pretty sure I know what ­answer you’d get,” he said.

Bravehearts founder Hetty Johnston told the ABC she was concerned about the effect the comments could have on abuse survivors.

“It just minimises what has happened to them. It says ‘it’s really nothing much, get over it’,’’ she said. “People take that as a slap.”

Pell dropped his application for bail while he pursued his appeal against his conviction.