Social Justice Corner: The Pell

The Pell Acquittal: Was Justice Served?

Rimsha Acharya

On 7 April 2020, Cardinal George Pell was acquitted in a landmark High Court verdict, and it has since attracted widespread emotional criticisms. Pell was found guilty of molesting two 13- year old Cathedral choirboys after a Sunday Mass in 1996 at St.Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne and sexually abusing one of them months later. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the events of 1996 occurred. The Court unanimously overturned the conviction and ordered the immediate release of Cardinal Pell. This case restores the presumption of innocence of Pell in future court cases, extending to civil proceedings and defamation actions.

In Pell v The Queen [2020], the High Court had to determine whether the jury acted rationally and ought to have entertained doubt in respect to the whole of the evidence presented to them. As one of the Cathedral choirboys died in 2014, the testimony of the events could only be given by the single surviving witness. The Court of Appeal relied on the testimony of the single surviving witness and accepted the truthfulness and reliability of the witness. However, the evidence provided by the other witnesses who had described Pell’s whereabouts on the day of the alleged abuse should have raised questions on whether the crime was committed. On assessment of each of Pell’s conviction, the High Court consistently referred to the words in Chidac v The Queen (1991) and M v The Queen (1994), ‘a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof’.

While the Court of Appeal considered that the complainant’s description of the interior of the church and the use of priest sacristy corroborated with his claim of abuse, evidence by the opportunity witness, were inconsistent with the complainant’s accounts. The counsel for Pell argued that there could not have been time for the abuse to occur in the location and time described by the victim.

It may be the case that the witness could have been honest about the abuse but got the specific details wrong. On the other hand, the opportunity witnesses who provided testimony could have been mistaken about the rituals and practices of St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996. The opportunity witnesses were those that held official positions at the Cathedral during the time. They provided evidence on the processes and practises at the Cathedral to explore the issue of whether there was ‘a realistic opportunity’ for the offence to take place. Although the High Court observed that rigidity is part of religious life, the possibility that there was time for the incident to occur still stands. As such, the Court held that their Honours in the Court of Appeal had failed to engage that there remained a reasonable possibility that the offending did not take place when assessing the evidence provided by the opportunity witnesses regarding Pell’s whereabouts on the day in question.

The case remains extremely controversial and it is rejected by many Australians as it will have a big impact on victims of abuse speaking out, especially when a prominent figure is involved. However, the Court also maintained that the verdict did not mean that the testimony of the single surviving witness was neither false nor wrong. Cardinal Pell’s senior counsel agreed in their submission that the choirboy was a credible witness.

The Pell judgement is one of the most important cases in Australian history. For many, it has resulted in loss of confidence in the justice system. The case raises the question of whether the jury system can be at fault in determining the guilt of a person. It reinforces that such a responsibility can be subject to a higher court.