Cardinal Pell Appeal: full transcript of decision

[FiveLinden]

Here is a link to the split decision in the Victorian Supreme Court in the case of Cardinal Pell, who denies charges, on which he was convicted, of sex abuse of two boys. Only one of those boys (now adult) gave evidence. The other died as a result of suicide.

The transcript is very, very long. It includes the views of the majority, which denied the appeal, and of the one judge who would have allowed it. All judges would have dismissed two of the three grounds of appeal.

It addresses in detail why the court found the evidence of one witness sufficient to have allowed he jury in the earlier case to have found Cardinal Pell guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It also provides a glimpse into the evidence given by the complainant which remains largely suppressed as far as the public is concerned. It was viewed in full by the Supreme Court although lawyers for Cardinal Pell tried to prevent this.

The transcript contains information about what the complainant gave evidence of happening involving Cardinal Pell and the two boys. This is not as graphic as many media reports of sexual offending but some CAF members may find it upsetting.

The minority opinion is at paragraph 352. It is not easy to find simply by scrolling.

Cardinal Pell is appealing this decision and continues to say he is innocent of all such offending, including alleged offending in other accusations which have not been brought to trial.

Before the decisions of this and the previous trial I had no strong views on Cardinal Pell’s guilt or innocence. I don’t claim any insight the courts do not have and am waiting for the next hearing.

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2019/186.html

 

[Emeraldlady]

In reading the testimony of the complainant, it’s just unfathomable to me that the jury and Supreme Court found ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. It was said that his testimony was ‘compelling’, but it must have been in his demeanour or something because I just don’t see that in the transcript.

 

[stpurl]

I have no doubt that the girls who testified at the Salem witch trials were compelling in THEIR testimony, strange as it seems to us. And we all know how accurate THAT was.

 

[FiveLinden]

Unfortunately we have not seen anything like all of the evidence given by the complainant or his cross-examination which seems to have been pretty rough. For some reason the court has not provided that. We just get to see what they said in the decision. The test is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ not ‘all reasonable doubt’ and the court was trying to decide if it was possible for the jury to have come to that conclusion. It dd not itself find that Cardinal Pell was guilty, just that it was possible for the jury to rightfully come to the conclusion that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. One judge, of course, agreed with you @Emeraldlady.