One of Australia’s worst ever miscarriages of justice

The monstrous conviction of Cardinal Pell is a stain on the Victorian justice system.

Michael Cook

Share
Topics World

Yes, there is a God, they must be thinking. A God of power, a God of mercy, they must be thinking, all those ABC journalists; Louise Milligan, the author of Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell; all those journalists at the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald; the Victorian premier; all those sniggering comedians on daytime TV; the Victorian police commissioner; David Marr, tap-tapping away at Guardian Australia.

A God who covers all our sins. A God who surely must have sent the coronavirus to hide our shame at our role in harassing, pursuing, sneering, persecuting, smearing, humiliating and jailing an innocent man for 405 days for a crime he did not commit, an implausible crime, a hideous crime of which he has been completely exonerated in the High Court of Australia.

They must think there is a God because, courtesy of the coronavirus and its domination of global headlines, the eyes of the world are averted from the quashing of Cardinal George Pell’s conviction and from these people’s ignominy. Praise be! Cardinal Pell has walked free but all our readers can think about is flattening the curve and whether there is toilet paper at the supermarkets. They will forget his vindication. They will forget our sneers. We will keep our funding. We will keep our jobs. Hallelujah!

Yes, this is the chance for a Kanye West-style conversion. ‘Every time I look up, I see God’s faithfulness’, as Kanye sings, ‘and it shows just how much He is miraculous’. Let us praise the Almighty for His coronavirus.

And they need a conversion, for the way they treated George Pell was monstrous. They are complicit in the worst miscarriage of justice in Australia’s history since Lindy Chamberlain was falsely convicted of murdering her infant daughter in 1982. (It was actually snatched by a dingo.)

In 2019, Pell, who is Australia’s most prominent Catholic cleric, a former archbishop of both Melbourne and Sydney, and a former senior figure in the Vatican, was sentenced to six years in jail for sexually abusing two choristers in St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne after Sunday Mass in 1996 and 1997. He went to the Victorian Court of Appeal, but that court upheld the jury’s verdict in a two-to-one decision.

Yesterday, Australia’s High Court ruled that the jury had erred in its verdict and the Court of Appeal had erred in law. Its decision was unanimous. All seven justices agreed that ‘the appellant’s convictions be quashed and judgements of acquittal be entered in their place’.

It was a stunning vindication of the cardinal’s innocence, which he had steadfastly maintained throughout his ordeal.

To the deep shame of the Catholic Church in Australia, there have been ghastly cases of sexual abuse by its priests and in its institutions. As the archbishop of Melbourne, Pell was responsible for establishing one of the first redress processes.

But instead of being esteemed as a pioneer in eliminating abuse, he became a lightning rod for public outrage. The Victorian police set up ‘Operation Tethering’ to fish for unreported offences. Eventually they found one. Meanwhile, the Twittersphere and the media, especially the ABC, the government broadcaster, made the atmosphere in Melbourne poisonous.

When he sat in the dock, the whole Catholic Church was on trial.

But it is a scandal that this case ever went before a magistrate, let alone the High Court.

The plausibility of Pell’s guilt rested entirely upon the truthfulness and reliability of a single witness, the unnamed complainant. Against him were arrayed a host of ‘opportunity witnesses’ who, one and all, testified that Pell simply could not have performed the vile actions of which he was accused. He did not have enough time; he was present elsewhere; he was surrounded by people. There was no confession; there was no pattern of behaviour; there was no forensic evidence. There was ample room for reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal had effectively reversed the burden of proof, the High Court found. In its judgement, it had assumed that the prosecution need only demonstrate that it was not impossible for the defendant to have committed the crime, rather than that it was possible beyond reasonable doubt. In the measured but scathing words of the High Court:

‘Upon the assumption that the jury assessed A’s evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the compounding improbabilities caused by the unchallenged evidence… nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt. Plainly they did [require it]. Making full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility… that an innocent person has been convicted.’

The High Court’s decision was a devastating demolition of the prosecution’s case and it was based squarely on that most fundamental principle of justice: ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Yet this did not stop one of the ABC’s leading journalists, Barrie Cassidy, from tweeting: ‘The High Court has found there was not enough evidence to convict. It did not find him innocent. You are then entitled to maintain your view and you are under no obligation to apologise for holding those views.’

I live in a country where people are entitled to a presumption of innocence. Where does Cassidy live?

His death grip on Pell’s guilt is a brainless misunderstanding of criminal justice. It must be a widely shared one, as his advice was retweeted thousands of times.

Juries find defendants ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. This is all the law can do. If Cassidy were improbably accused of using infected handkerchiefs to spread the coronavirus, isn’t there a 10million-to-one chance that this is possible? But when justice eventually prevailed, he would be found merely ‘not guilty’, not ‘innocent’.

The really guilty party in this debacle is a gaggle of journalists – mostly at the ABC and the Fairfax press – who harried Pell for years and proclaimed his guilt with or without evidence.

In fact, they are still doing it. In its editorial, the Fairfax-owned Sydney Morning Herald declared: ‘Cardinal Pell has said he hopes the judgement clearing him will not add to the bitterness felt by the victims of child abuse carried out over decades by Catholic clergy in Australia. One of the best ways to alleviate their pain is to continue the pursuit of Cardinal Pell and the Catholic Church for their handling of these crimes.’

Will they ever face a day of reckoning for destroying the reputation and career of an innocent man, for making him a pariah in his twilight years? Will their books be pulped? Will their Twitterfeeds be purged? Will they be sued for defamation? Will they lose their jobs?

No, praise the Lord who sent the coronavirus! Praise be!

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet, an online magazine based in Sydney

Picture by: Getty.

Let’s cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides – from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Brandy Cluster

13th April 2020 at 7:52 am

No, but do keep going with your conspiracy theories. You must feel you have to.

William Tell

12th April 2020 at 4:12 pm

He is not necessarily innocent. The quashing of a conviction does not imply innocence as you ought to know.
Just a thought—is the author of this piece a Roman Catholic and what was the make up of the court in that most Catholic of countries, Australia?

Brandy Cluster

13th April 2020 at 7:51 am

No, but do keep going with your conspiracy theories. You must feel you have to.

David Watford

9th April 2020 at 1:07 am

The High Court did not declare Pell innocent and found that Witness A’s testimony was credible.
What they said that there was enough reasonable doubt so “there was a significant possibility … that innocent person has been convicted” and the 2nd jury was thus wrong to convict beyond reasonable doubt. And that two judges on the Victoria Court of Appeal erred in their decision in which they stated that because Witness A’s testimony was credible, the fact that a large amount of unchallenged testimony about Pell’s lack of opportunity to commit crime couldn’t amount to reasonable doubt. A total invasion of the burden of proof.

The SMH is talking about a report into the Catholic Church’s handling of sexual abuse allegations dating back decades which includes claims that Pell moved on priests who were accused of abuse, and were later convicted of abuse. It was not released because it would have prejudiced Pell’s trial and appeals. This is a separate matter which has nothing to do with Pell’s conviction and acquittal of these charges. That process will continue and could result in civil suits against the Catholic Church. The SMH is right to point this out.

Kim Julia44

8th April 2020 at 8:40 pm

If You Are On A Lookout For A Way To Earn Your First Dollar Online You Can Stop Searching!. Start Now With This Award Winning Program And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week!Find out more here……. wwwWORKS46.com

steve moxon

8th April 2020 at 7:13 pm

Yes, it certainly was appalling: as appalling as all the other huge numbers of deliberately engineered miscarriages of justice against men, who are now usually deemed guilty until proven innocent in any charge re sex, not least through the legislation re sex offences actually stating that you have to prove your innocence.
The whole legal pile of obscenity needs to be abolished, with the resumption, in the legislation and in the judicial process, of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Brandy Cluster

13th April 2020 at 7:53 am

Steve Moxon: You’ve absolutely nailed it. Welcome to the new authoritarian, kangaroo court of the SJW Left. Dangerous ideologues.

Anna Billy

8th April 2020 at 6:40 pm

Do you want to make new friends. Just follow below link and Reach new Friends. chill and Enjoy. intimate hookups, friends with benefits or just someone to flirt with for fun.
Read More

Alexander Allan

8th April 2020 at 5:14 pm

Strangely written article.

Ven Oods

8th April 2020 at 6:14 pm

In what sense ‘strangely’?
If the High Court is right (and if it’s not then the system’s screwed) then a man was convicted of something that nobody proved and so he’s been set free. The fact that some of the Press that hounded him can’t accept that is surely the bit that’s strange.
(I’m not RC and not even Christian, but ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is surely a decent aim, whatever someone’s beliefs.)

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

8th April 2020 at 1:44 pm

Much easier just to do away with the Roman church entirely. We’re sick of its heretical presentation of the Christian Gospel, support for fascism, hatred of women and minorities, opposition to political freedom (except on its own terms) and p a ed o ph ili a. Luther was right about the papacy.

Ven Oods

8th April 2020 at 6:10 pm

I’m no apologist for the RC church, but why would you want to abolish an institution that around 1.2 billion people hold dear? I think they have you easily outnumbered.

James Knight

8th April 2020 at 1:18 pm

“You are then entitled to maintain your view ”

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one.

That is why we have the law and courts, to deal with allegations in a more objective way than “opinion”.

Dominic Straiton

8th April 2020 at 12:40 pm

Rule of law and the presumption of innocence is the only defence against the lefts dumb, believe “victims” without evidence mantra.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

8th April 2020 at 1:45 pm

I have no knowledge of or interest in this case but I do know that the Roman church has done more to prevent the spread of the Gospel globally than even the false religion of the imposter M u hamm ed.

Brandy Cluster

13th April 2020 at 7:55 am

As Lionel Shriver recently said, “‘believe women’ isn’t very far from its neighbour ‘believe everybody'”. But the good old Left isn’t intelligent enough to understand or care about any of it.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.

Deplorables — a spiked film