He "Came Across as Someone Who Was Telling the Truth": Pell v The Queen

Abstract

When the jury at Cardinal Pell’s second trial convicted him on 11 December 2018 of five charges of historical sexual offending, were the verdicts unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence? A majority of the Court of Appeal of Victoria (‘VSCA’) held that they were not, and Pell has now asked the High Court of Australia (‘HCA’) to reverse that decision. It is argued in this column that, if the HCA grants Pell special leave to appeal, it should reject his argument that the VSCA majority reversed the onus of proof when reaching the conclusion that it did. That, however, is not necessarily to say that the jury was entitled to find Pell guilty largely on the strength of the complainant’s testimony. Evidence that Pell had no opportunity to offend was powerful, and it appears to us that the jury might have acquitted. Whether it must have done so is a more contentious question. Especially given the highly controversial nature of these proceedings, it might be that, if it decides this question, the HCA will attach much weight to the established principle that jury verdicts are not lightly to be disturbed.