Cardinal Pell’s Case – A Trial and an Appeal Gone Wrong By Warren Pyke*
“An ounce of intrinsic merit or demerit in the evidence, that is to say the value of the comparison of evidence with known facts, is worth pounds of demeanour” Lord Atkin in Société d’avances Commerciales (Société Anomyne Egyptienne) v Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co. (‘ The Palitana’) (1924) 20 Lloyds L Rep 140, 152 The setting and solemn procession One cannot understand the High Court’s judgment unless the setting in which the offending was alleged to have occurred is visualised. The precinct buildings and ceremonies are described in detail in the judgments (the Court of Appeal’s judgment includes diagrams and extracts from the evidence).
Cardinal Pell was installed as Archbishop of Melbourne on 16 August 1996. In 2018, Cardinal Pell was found guilty by a County Court jury in the State of Victoria of one charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years and four charges of committing an act of indecency with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16 years. There had been an earlier trial, at which the jury were hung. While serving a term of imprisonment, he unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal in Victoria; one of the grounds was that the verdicts were unreasonable (Pell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 186, Weinberg JA dissenting). He was denied bail pending appeal.
The following were the circumstances in which the alleged offending occurred. After the dismissal at the end of each of the two solemn Masses, the choir, attendants and clergy formally processed down the Cathedral’s centre aisle. The choir processed in strict order. It was Cardinal Pell’s practice to leave this procession and remain on the steps of the Cathedral accompanied by his master of ceremonies (" the Master "), enabling him to greet congregants as they were leaving. While he did so, choristers returned to the choir room in the adjacent Knox Centre; altar servers
On 7 April 2020, the High Court of Australia unanimously quashed all convictions on the ground that the verdicts were unreasonable (Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12). Cardinal Pell has since been restored to Holy Orders. This case note examines why the High Court unanimously held that the jury and the State appeal court got it wrong. I also argue that grants of bail pending appeal ought to be more favourably considered where plausible and substantial grounds of appeal are raised and the appellant is of previous good character, or is vulnerable. The circumstances of the alleged offences The offences were allegedly committed in St Patrick’s Cathedral, East Melbourne (“the Cathedral”), following the celebration of Sunday solemn Mass on two occasions, within months of Cardinal Pell’s installation as Archbishop of Melbourne. The victims of the alleged offending were two Cathedral choirboys, “A” and “B”. By the time A made his complaint, B had died in accidental circumstances. The prosecution relied entirely upon the testimony of complainant A to establish guilt, and nothing more.
www.nzbar.org.nz
8
