Cardinal Pell wins bid for appeal
The Australian High Court announced today that Cardinal George Pell has been granted leave to appeal an August decision by the Court of Appeal in Victoria to uphold his conviction for child sexual abuse.
Cardinal Pell’s appeal to the High Court in Canberra, Australia’s supreme court, was his last legal avenue to overturn a conviction.
The cardinal was convicted Dec. 11, 2018, on five charges that he sexually abused two choir boys after Sunday Mass while he was Archbishop of Melbourne in 1996 and 1997.
He was sentenced to six years in prison, of which he must serve at least three years and eight months before being eligible to apply for parole.
The cardinal, 78, who remains an archbishop and a member of the College of Cardinals, was returned to prison immediately after court adjourned. He has been held in solitary confinement and has not been permitted to celebrate Mass in prison.
Cardinal Pell has maintained his innocence, with his defense making central the argument that the alleged crimes would have been, under the circumstances, “simply impossible.”
The cardinal’s defenders have contended that the sacristy abuse allegations are not possible given the high traffic after Mass and the obstructing nature of the Mass vestments.
Cardinal Pell had appealed to the Court of Appeal in Victoria. Three judges considered his case and dismissed his procedural appeal. The judges were divided on the cardinal’s primary ground of appeal, that the decision of the jury was “unreasonable.”
At particular issue was the question of whether the jury which convicted Cardinal Pell had properly weighed all of the evidence presented in his defense, or reached the determination of guilt despite the demonstration of clear “reasonable doubt” that he committed the crimes with which he was charged.
Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Court President Chris Maxwell formed the majority in favor of rejecting Cardinal Pell’s appeal that the jury verdict was unreasonable on the evidence presented, finding that it was open to the jury to find beyond “reasonable doubt about the truth of the complainant’s account.”
In an extensive dissent from the majority finding, Justice Mark Weinberg noted that the entirety of the evidence against Cardinal Pell consisted of the testimony of a single accuser, whereas more than 20 witnesses were produced to testify against his narrative.
“Even the ‘reasonable possibility’ that what the witnesses who testified to these matters may have been true must inevitably have led to an acquittal,” Weinberg wrote, concluding that Cardinal Pell had, in effect, been improperly asked to establish the “impossibility” of his guilt and not merely reasonable doubt.
All three judges granted further leave to appeal on the ground of the unreasonableness of the jury’s conviction.
Media commentators and members of the Australian legal community have voiced concerns about the reasoning of the two-judge majority opinion and the wider implications its argumentation could have for standards of evidence in criminal trials.
Holy See press office director Matteo Bruni responded to the Court of Appeal decision by saying that “the Holy See acknowledges the court’s decision to dismiss Cardinal Pell’s appeal,” while reiterating its “respect for the Australian judicial system.”
“As the proceedings continue to develop, the Holy See recalls that the Cardinal has always maintained his innocence throughout the judicial process and that it is his right to appeal to the High Court,” Bruni said at the time.
I wonder if it is beyond reasonable to suppose that Satan is somehow behind the decision to try Cardinal Pell and the majority guilty verdict of the Victorian Supreme Court judges?
If we believe in the rule of law, justice will occur in terms of innocence or guilt, but the introduction of Satan into the process is not based on any evidentiary logic.
It is the same as arguing ‘President Trump is damaging the fabric of American democracy: somehow Satan is somehow behind it.’
Thank you.I lived in NSW for fifty seven years and my interest continues eventhough I live in Ireland at present. I find the daily reflections inspiring.
Anyone suggesting that Trump is damaging the fabric of American democracy probably also believes in the rule of law. Either that or they know little about the legal system, little about American politics and, little about the Bible. Jesus had no doubt about the activities of Satan. Did you know that interest in Saint Michael the Archangel is returning? I wonder why?