The appeal by Cardinal George Pell against his child sex abuse conviction was yesterday rejected by Victoria’s Court of Appeal, a decision that has been met with surprise from legal experts and joy from advocates. The legal team for the Vatican’s most senior cleric convicted to date has already indicated it will launch a High Court appeal. So, the only certainty, for now, is that Pell will remain in jail and that the culture war will rage on.
As Professor of Law Mirko Bargaric says, The Pell trial and verdict have deeply divided the community. There can be no doubt that Pell is an especial villain in the eyes of many, not just for his crime, but for his uncompromising social conservatism and divisive persona. The cheering crowds outside the court – a “lynch mob”, according to the judge who originally convicted Pell – exemplify the feelings of many in the community.
At last the voices of victims are not only being heard but believed.
The decision by the Court of Appeal marks the beginning of a cultural shift where child sexual offenders can no longer rely on money, power or privilege to hide from the scales of justice […] Importantly, the justices have also handed hope to survivors of child sexual abuse across the nation […] Pell’s conviction marks a turning point in how the system understands and responds to allegations of child sexual assault, and we have already seen it encourage [sic] other victims to come forward.
theaustralian.com.au/commentary/finally-justice-trumps-wealth-and-power
On the other hand, legal experts are less easy with the verdict. Many have pointed to Justice Weinberg’s dissenting opinion.
Despite writing in dissent, judge Mark Weinberg dominated yesterday’s decision in George Pell’s appeal with a 204-page argument that can be summed up in one line: the cardinal’s conviction is unsafe […]
This massive dissent is expected to become a guide for any special leave application. Even if special leave is refused by the High Court, Weinberg’s rejection of much of the prosecution’s case is set to ensure the community’s deep divisions over this cleric are unlikely to be healed.
Legal academic Mirko Bagaric said he had been surprised that the two judges who formed the majority had not followed Weinberg, because the dissenting judge was “clearly the brightest bloke on the Victorian Court of Appeal” […] If there is another appeal, the High Court would be asked to answer the same question that confronted the Court of Appeal: on the whole of the evidence before the jury, was it reasonable to convict Pell?
In dismissing circumstantial evidence and opposing eyewitnesses, the appeals judges relied solely on the credibility of the complainant. The two convicting judges found the complainant credible and compelling. Weinberg did not.
One senior legal academic said the differences between the majority and Weinberg were so extensive it might appear to some that they had been considering different cases.
[…]Yesterday’s ruling comes at a time when a growing number of decisions by the Victorian Court of Appeal have been overturned by the High Court.
theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/legal-experts-add-weight-to-opinion-of-dissenting-judge
And that’s almost certainly where Pell’s case will head next. Still, as academic Kevin Donnelly – who, it should be noted, is a senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University – writes:
The victims of sexual abuse including the complainant no doubt will welcome and celebrate the result but, given the dissenting opinion of Justice Mark Weinberg, the suspicion still exists that justice may not have been fully served.
theaustralian.com.au/commentary/secular-critics-get-their-man-in-george-pell
After all, it should be remembered, Lindy Chamberlain failed to have her conviction overturned at both the Court of Appeal and the High Court.