Australia’s High Court has taken the first step to possibly overturning George Pell’s sex-abuse conviction.
The conviction and subsequent rejection of appeal delighted many in Australia but also created shockwaves in the legal fraternity, where it was widely viewed as a flawed and dangerous judgement. While the High Court has not exonerated Pell at this stage, it has at the least indicated that there are sufficient flaws in the case to justify re-examining it.
The High Court will consider acquitting George Pell of sexually abusing two choirboys as the prosecution changed its timeframe for when the assaults could have occurred.
The full bench was asked on Thursday to acquit Pell, 78, of five charges of molesting the two 13-year-olds in 1996 and 1997 while archbishop of Melbourne, but the matter also could be referred back to the Victorian Court of Appeal.
The High Court has asked for further submissions from the parties but experts are predicting a possible acquittal as Bret Walker SC, for Pell, effectively asked the full bench to free his client.
The prosecution, meanwhile, is beginning to look spooked.
Mr Walker excoriated the prosecution, accusing it of changing the parameters of the case and attempting to massage the facts to fit the legal narrative.
Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions Kerri Judd QC faced a torrid day before the full bench, peppered with questions about the veracity of the facts that led to Pell’s six-year jail sentence, which was delivered a year ago.
The Victorian DPP, it should be remembered, rejected the police’s brief of evidence twice before taking the unusual step of leaving it open to the police to take it to trial.
One of the key points in the appeal is whether or not Pell even had the opportunity to offend. Witnesses claim that Pell was never alone with the boys, nor that he would have had time to molest them in any case.
Ms Judd stunned the court when she abandoned the prosecution’s position over the amount of time that private prayer was held for after Solemn Mass.
She said the five- to six-minute timeframe, which the prosecution claimed gave the opportunity to offend, may actually have been longer, depending on what unfolded in the cathedral on the day[…]It was not clear from Ms Judd exactly when Pell was supposed to have offended, although it had previously been stated that he assaulted the boys after the procession had ended and he returned to change in the sacristy.
The five- to six-minute timeframe was put to the jury and, until Thursday, was at the centre of the prosecution narrative.
Ms Judd also conceded that evidence of George Pell’s right-hand man, Monsignor Charles Portelli, when viewed on its own, could create enough doubt to prevent Pell’s convictions.
The High Court’s judges seem to doubt at least some of the prosecution’s claims.
Ms Judd said one of the strongest pieces of evidence proving Pell’s guilt was the fact the complainant knew specific details about the sacristy at St Patrick’s — the scene of the alleged sexual abuse and a room that was off-limits to the choirboys.
But judge Geoffrey Nettle probed whether this information specifically proved Pell had been in the room at the time the alleged offence was committed.
Chief judge Susan Kiefel also weighed in, questioning that while this showed the complainant may have entered the sacristy at some point in time, “does it ever go further than that?”.
theaustralian.com.au/nation/george-pell-appeal-times-were-not-exact-dpp-admits/
If Pell is acquitted, it will be a devastating judgement on policing and justice in the state of Victoria, already reeling from a series of scandals including the “Lawyer X” revelations.
But even if the High Court paves the way for Pell’s acquittal, his enemies are already moving to make sure they get their man again. A series of civil actions – where the weight of evidence is much lower, and the protections for defendants much fewer, than a criminal trial – are already being prepared.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.