Australian High Court quashes conviction of Cardinal Pell on sex offences

By Sonali Paul

 

FILE PHOTO: Cardinal George Pell attends a news conference at the Vatican, June 29, 2017. REUTERS/Remo Casilli/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - Australia's highest court on Tuesday overturned former Vatican treasurer George Pell's conviction for sexually assaulting two teenaged choirboys in the 1990s, allowing the 78-year-old cardinal to walk free from jail.

 

In a unanimous ruling, the High Court found that the jury in Cardinal Pell's trial "ought to have entertained a doubt" as to his guilt.

 

The court's seven judges ordered the convictions be quashed and verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place.

 

Pell, who has maintained his innocence throughout the lengthy court process, cannot be retried on the charges, ending the most high profile case globally of alleged sexual abuse by priests to have rocked the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Pell, a polarising figure in Australia for his conservative views, was the highest ranked Catholic official worldwide to have been jailed for child sex offences when he began serving a six-year sentence a year ago.

 

The cardinal was charged in 2017 with one charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and four charges of an indecent act with a child under 16, which the plaintiff said took place when Pell was archbishop of the city of Melbourne.

 

The judgment was delivered during Holy Week, the period leading up to Easter which is the most important day in the Christian calendar, following two days of hearings a month ago.

 

The decision was delivered to a largely empty courtroom in Brisbane because of national restrictions on travel and public gatherings amid the coronavirus pandemic.

 

Pell's first trial ended in a hung jury, before the jury in a second trial unanimously found him guilty in 2018. Pell did not take the stand at either trial.

 

Under Australia's court system, his first appeal went to a court in Victoria, where a majority of two judges against one upheld his conviction.

 

Pell's lawyers then took the case to the High Court, arguing that the Victoria appeals court had erred in shifting the onus of proof to the defense and in finding that it was open to the jury to find Pell guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

The High Court said the lower court of appeal had "failed to engage with the question of whether there remained a reasonable possibility that the offending had not taken place, such that there ought to have bene a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt."

 

The cardinal was appointed by Pope Francis in 2014 to overhaul the Vatican's vast finances but lost his role last year after being jailed. Pope Francis has said he would only comment on the case after Pell exhausted all avenues of appeal.

 

He has remained a cardinal despite pressure on the church from victims of sexual abuse and their advocates to dismiss him.

 

(Reporting by Sonali Paul; editing by Jane Wardell)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-04-07

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

The power of a higher being, or not?

When you have a conservative court this is what you get...rockspiders walking free...

16 minutes ago, webfact said:

the High Court found that the jury in Pell's trial "ought to have entertained a doubt"

Who said they didn't?,,,,,,,,,,,,Amazing point to be acquitted on.

 

They could  obviously find nothing else wrong with the prosecution. I guess its back to the Vatican with all his other fellows for him.....

Didn't really expect any other other outcome, convicting him would like convicting the whole church institution and the big boss in the vatican would not allow it...

Is this our version of a 500 Bahts fine with a Wai?

2 minutes ago, Boomer6969 said:

Is this our version of a 500 Bahts fine with a Wai?

Those are usually run of the mill posts, but really funny in this context!

Edited April 7, 20206 yr by sungod

40 minutes ago, webfact said:

"ought to have entertained a doubt" as to his guilt.

Even if there was none,

regards Worgeordie

Well I wonder how many will turn up for his church service.

He is retired

No services

“There, there my boy!

Two more complainants went public last week, from the same school . 

4 hours ago, worgeordie said:

Even if there was none,

regards Worgeordie

If the jury in the first trial failed to reach a verdict then presumably there must have been doubts.

This is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the high court of Australia. Rock spiders everywhere will be proud of you.

53 minutes ago, JAG said:

If the jury in the first trial failed to reach a verdict then presumably there must have been doubts.

Sounds like it

Pell excused others that did wrong

Widely hated

The timeline would suggest that he was not guilty of this particular offence. Having said that I think it is fairly obvious that he was involved in cover-ups of other sexual assaults, especially in the Ballarat area.

He has done 400+ days of prison and it remains to be seen if he will go for any compensation. I hope not.

He will probably return to the Vatican when the travel restrictions are lifted.

45 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

The timeline would suggest that he was not guilty of this particular offence. Having said that I think it is fairly obvious that he was involved in cover-ups of other sexual assaults, especially in the Ballarat area.

He has done 400+ days of prison and it remains to be seen if he will go for any compensation. I hope not.

He will probably return to the Vatican when the travel restrictions are lifted.

I imagine an exception could be made and a Vatican jet could take him into their warm embrace

2 minutes ago, Emdog said:

I imagine an exception could be made and a Vatican jet could take him into their warm embrace

Not real sure that they actually want him back. ????

These types of trials are very difficult. Historical trials such as these are almost impossible to defend against and the "hang em high" brigade is strong now, especially with the female #metoo movement being so en vogue and baying for blood at every turn. If you so even as much as be slightly accused of something if you are a white male, then you are the Devil's right hand man. Problem is, is that people need to be convicted on evidence and not just merely on testimony ... and if all you have is testimony then yes, there is doubt possible as J'accuse isn't good enough on it's own in my opinion. If not then we are heading back to the vindictive witch hunt trials of "She's a witch, I saw her with a black cat" sort of nonsense from the dark ages. Why aren't the same types that are whining about this case also not moaning about Alex Salmond? He was acquitted too through lack of evidence so why is this cardinal any different?

if he is 'that' innocent...

 - well then send him back to Italy 

4 minutes ago, Brigand said:

These types of trials are very difficult. Historical trials such as these are almost impossible to defend against and the "hang em high" brigade is strong now, especially with the female #metoo movement being so en vogue and baying for blood at every turn.

If you think this has anything to do with the #metoo movement, then you are misled.

1 hour ago, DoctorG said:

Having said that I think it is fairly obvious that he was involved in cover-ups of other sexual assaults, especially in the Ballarat area.

Many, many reports from people still alive, some that I know, that as Bishop he totally ignored protests from parishioners on the matter, and plonked known pedo priests slap bang into parish churches with primary schools right next door.

2 minutes ago, samran said:

If you think this has anything to do with the #metoo movement, then you are misled.

It has set an example or bar of the expectations of many in society.

2 minutes ago, tifino said:

w.ell then send him back to Italy 

and getting a reward by the Pope.

 

As was done for Cardinal Bernard Law.

 

 

Check  =

-Bernard Francis Law- and -Spotlight (movie)= at Wikipedia.

 

24 minutes ago, Brigand said:

It has set an example or bar of the expectations of many in society.

On this particular topic, it’s the other way around. For years the church has actively used its political power to shut down any criticism. It’s only been recently that any momentum has been gained. 

The stain will not wash out irrespective of how many expensive lawyers are doing the laundry.

Another living victim has come forward in Australia, would be great if he was to be charged again. What's that saying about where there is smoke, there's fire?

48 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

1 hour ago, tifino said:

w.ell then send him back to Italy 

and getting a reward by the Pope.

 

As was done for Cardinal Bernard Law.

 

 

Check  =

-Bernard Francis Law- and -Spo tlight (movie)= at Wikipedia.

 

I wrote Italy... not necessarily Rome... ???? 

 

Go Pell. Go Catholics. Go Pope. I think I'll go to Confession, and then put on my choirboy uniform and go to Mass. 

The UK has its skeletons. Sir Keir Starmer and Jimmy Savile.

8 hours ago, sanuk711 said:

Who said they didn't?,,,,,,,,,,,,Amazing point to be acquitted on.

 

They could  obviously find nothing else wrong with the prosecution. I guess its back to the Vatican with all his other fellows for him.....

 

So it's the end of the jury system in Australia? Now they can simply be overruled on second appeal. No new evidence. Simply the judges deciding the jury got their judgement wrong.

 

Wow! Massive implications.

 

Wonder if anyone checked what religion all these judges are? No conflicts of interest?