Although special leave cases are not usually granted by the High Court, it's possible Pell's could be accepted.

This is because judges at his appeal could not agree about Pell's guilt or innocence.

Only two of the three Victorian Appeal Court judges deemed him guilty of the sex abuse accusations of which he had been convicted.

He was found guilty by a jury last year of sex offences against two teenage choirboys after Mass at in 1996 while he was archbishop.

One of the former choirboys gave evidence at Pell's trials.

The other died in 2014 from a drug overdose. His family says his death was linked to post-traumatic stress disorder from the abuse.

Chief judge Anne Ferguson and the president of the court Chris Maxwell found the former choirboy to be a truthful witness. They said Pell's conviction should stand.

Judge Mark Weinberg does not share their opinion.

He found the complainant embellished his account at times. In his opinion, Pell should be acquitted.

Pell's barristers say the Court mistakenly reversed the onus of proof when hearing his case.

This forced Pell to prove it was impossible for him to sexually assault the two choirboys in a cathedral.

His legal team also says there is reasonable doubt about the existence of an opportunity for the attack to have occurred.

Pell is now exercising his last legal avenue to overturn his conviction.

Unless he is granted the right to appeal and has his conviction overturned, Pell will continue to serve his six-year prison sentence.

He must serve at least three years and eight months before being eligible to apply for parole.

The Vatican is waiting for the outcome of this final appeal process before ruling on Pell's status in the Church.

In the meantime, he remains an archbishop and a member of the College of Cardinals.

Pell has not been permitted to celebrate Mass in prison.

Source

• Catholic News Agency
• The Australian
• Image: RNZ

After a panel of judges rejected Pell's attempt to overturn the December 2018 jury's guilty verdict against him, the Holy See released a statement saying the cardinal has "always maintained his innocence" and that he is entitled to bring his case to the High Court of Australia.

The Vatican added, however, that it is committed to pursuing perpetrators of abuse through the "competent ecclesiastical authorities," a reference to the Church investigation that has been opened against the 78-year-old former Holy See economy tsar.

That process, which could see Pell removed from the priesthood, will not get into a full swing until a decision on the final appeal bid is made.

It is still unclear whether the High Court will even hear the cardinal's case.

"As in other cases, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is awaiting the outcome of the ongoing proceedings and the conclusion of the appellate process prior to taking up the case," a Vatican spokesman said on Wednesday, adding that the pope had removed the cardinal from public ministry and contact with minors when Pell returned to Australia.

A senior Rome source said the church inquiry will rely on what the Australian court is willing to share with investigators, and an assessment has to be made on whether the case will proceed.

The cardinal can defend himself during the church process and, judging by his approach in the civil trial, he is likely to vigorously contest the case.

But it also opens a potentially nightmare scenario for the Holy See is if the church clears cardinal, while his criminal conviction stands.

The Pell case has become something of a litmus test for the church's handling of abuse, given that so much hangs on the testimony of a single complainant.

Will a victim, who has undergone cross-examination and convinced a jury, be believed, or will the denials of a powerful cardinal be accepted?

For the Church to convince the world it is serious about tackling abuse, child protection experts stress that everyone making an allegation of abuse must be listened to, regardless of who they accuse. Continue reading

Judge Mark Weinberg says he would have based his decision on a "significant body of cogent evidence" that cast serious doubt on the victim's accoun­t.

In his dissenting ruling, Weinberg says the case is unusual: it depends entirely upon the victim being accepted beyond reasonable doubt as a credible and reliable witness.

"Yet the jury were invited to accept­ his evidence without there being any independent support for it," he continues.

"From ... the complainant's evidence, it can be seen that there was ample material upon which his account could be legitimately subject to criticism.

"There were inconsistencies, and discrepancies, and a number of his answers simply made no sense.

"On occasion, he seemed almost to ‘clutch at straws' in an attempt to minimise, or overcome, the obvious inconsistencies between what he had said on ear­lier occasions, and what the object­ive evidence clearly showed.

"The complainant's alleg­ations against the applicant were, to one degree or another, implausible.

He could not exclude the possibility that some parts of the former choirboy's testimony were "concocted".

Weinberg says the prose­cution's case was challenged by accepted testimony of a signif­icant number of witnesses, "all of whom were of good character and reputable" he says.

The possibility of the abuse occurring in the sacristy­ relied on several factors.

These included whether Pell was always accompanied by parish priest Monsignor Charles Portelli and whether the area was a "hive of activity" shortly after Sunday Mass.

"Even the ‘reasonable possibility that what the witnesses who testified to these matters may have been true must inevitably have led to an acquittal ... because the complainan­t's account could not be reconciled at all with any such finding," Weinberg says.

Legal experts are beginning to focus on the verdict.

One, Mirko Bagaric, a professor at Swinburne University, expressed surprise the two judges who formed the majority had not followed Weinberg.

Bagaric's view is that Weinberg was "clearly the brightest bloke on the Victorian Court of Appeal" reports The Australian.

Bagaric told The Australian that Weinberg was a "powerhouse" on criminal matters and more experienced in this area than the two judges who formed the majority.

Weinberg's two colleagues on the appeal bench - Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Justice Chris Maxwell - found the victim was telling the truth and ruled Pell's appeal should be dismissed.

Source

• The Age
• The Sydney Morning Herald
• The Australian
• The Australian
• Image: News.com

The journey follows the Court of Appeal's split 2-1 decision handed down by Chief Justice Anne Ferguson.

Both she and Justice Chris Maxwell experienced no doubt about Pell's guilt.

"The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell accepted the prosecution's submission that the complainant was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist and was a witness of truth," the summary said.

The dissenting judge, Justice Mark Weinberg, found discrepancies and inadequacies in the choirboy's evidence meaning the victim's account should have been impossible for a jury to accept.

Pell's lawyers had put forward 13 reasons why he should have been freed.

One of these reasons was the question of whether Pell's layers of liturgical vestments could be moved in a way the complainant said.

After inspecting similar vestments Ferguson and Maxwell concluded the jury made the correct conclusion.

The judges were however unanimous in dismissing the legal procedural arguments advanced by Pell's defence.

In full agreement, they dismissed the grounds that Pell's arraignment did not follow protocol and agreed with trial judge Peter Kidd that Pell's defence should not have seen an animation of the cathedral where Pell abused the choir boys.

The judges watched more than 30 hours of video testimony and read more than 2000 pages of transcript.

They also visited St Patrick's Cathedral and the sacristy where 23 years ago two boys were sexually assaulted by the then Archbishop of Melbourne.

Victims' pleased

The victim of Pell's sexual abuse, known as J, says he is relieved.

He hoped the matter ends today.

J rejects he acted for personal gain or to bring down the Catholic Church.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. I have risked my privacy, my health, my wellbeing, my family. I have not instructed any solicitor in relation to a claim for compensation. This is not about money and never has been.

"Although my faith has taken a battering, it is still a part of my life, and part of the lives of my loved ones.

"I am not an advocate. You wouldn't know my name. I am not a champion for the cause of sexual abuse survivors, although I am glad those advocates are out there. But that is not my path", the victim said in a statement.

"I appreciate that the criminal process has afforded Pell every opportunity to challenge the charges and every opportunity to be heard. I am glad he has had the best legal representation that money can buy. There are a lot of checks and balances in the criminal justice system and the appeals process is one of them. I just hope that it is all over now."

Child sexual abuse advocate Chrissie Foster described the Pell appeal verdict as "an outstanding example of justice".

"It's a rare thing, and so many victims will be encouraged and propped up by this," she said outside Victoria's Supreme Court.

"It's just astounding; we're not used to this."

Appeal possible

Not long after verdict's delivery Pell's spokesperson, Katrina Lee issued a statement expressing disappointment with the judges' decision.

"Cardinal Pell is obviously disappointed with the decision today".

"However, his legal team will thoroughly examine the judgment in order to determine a special leave application to the High Court.

"While noting the 2-1 split decision, Cardinal Pell maintains his innocence. We thank his many supporters."

Respect the decision

Peter Comensoli, the Catholic archbishop of Melbourne, issued a separate statement saying he respected the court's decision and encouraged everyone to do the same.

"My thoughts and prayers are with the man who brought this matter before the courts. I humbly acknowledge it has been a challenging time for him, and I stand ready to offer pastoral care and spiritual help, should he seek it.

"In Christian charity, I will ensure that Cardinal Pell is provided pastoral and spiritual support while he serves the remainder of his sentence, according to the teaching and example of Jesus to visit those in prison.

Comensoli says he and the Archdiocese are committed to a culture that listens, that seeks to bring justice and healing, and that protects children and vulnerable people.

Honours stripped

In 2005, Pell received the Order of Australia for his service to the Catholic Church.

Following the unsuccessful appeal, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison says that Pell will likely be stripped of his Australian honour.

"The courts have done their job, they've rendered their verdict," he said. "That's the system of justice in the country that must be respected."

It is unlikely the Australian Governor-General will take any action to revoke his honour until resolution of a possible appeal to the High Court.

Pell is not allowed to celebrate Mass in prison and will be eligible to apply for parole after he has served 3 years 8 months of his sentence.

Appeal

The Vatican has acknowledged the Australian judicial system.

It recalls Pell has always maintained his innocence throughout the judicial process, which includes his right to appeal to the High Court.

He has 28 days to file what would be a final appeal.

Pope Francis' response

In what has been labelled a criptic comment, Pope Francis has broken his silence on Pell's unsuccessful appeal.

"It takes more strength to repair than to build, to start anew than to begin, to be reconciled than to get along. This is the strength that God gives us," Francis, last evening, wrote on Twitter.

On February 27, 2019, the Vatican announced the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would conduct its canonical investigation.

Sources

• SMH
• The Age
• The Australian
• ABC News
• Vatican News
• Image: Alex Coppel

Wilson told the court via electronic communication that he is innocent and had no recollection of the accusations of abuse committed by Fr James Fletcher when Fletcher was charged with child sex abuse in 2004.

He said if he had been notified of Fletcher's abuse, he would have offered pastoral care to the victims and their families, and reported the event to his superiors.

Wilson's lawyer, Stephen Odgers, told the court one of Fletcher's victims, Peter Creigh, may not have clearly communicated that he had been indecently assaulted.

In any case, Odgers argued Wilson cannot be convicted of concealing indecent assault, because the sex act described under 1970s law was an act of indecency and not an assault.

He also pointed out that "unattractive as it is, there is no indecent assault" when you invite a child to perform a sex act.

Newcastle District Court Judge Roy Ellis countered this, saying that it was an assault under 1970s law.

"I don't think, in this case, that this is going to be a problem for the prosecution. You have some problems, but this isn't one of them," Ellis said.

Odgers also questioned the archbishop's memory of a conversation held 28 years before Fletcher was charged and that he may not have known the information could be of assistance to the police.

In response, Ellis said: "We have all experienced having forgotten something and being reminded about it and realising you had made a mistake and you were wrong,"

Ellis also noted that Wilson's behavior with a priest who had asked him for advice relating to another boy Fletcher abused was inconsistent with him knowing and failing to report Creigh's story.

In 2004 Fr Glen Walsh approached the archbishop who "advised Father Walsh he … should be reporting it to police," Ellis said.

"The way he acted in my mind runs completely contrary to him realising and then not remembering Peter Creigh's evidence."

Wilson, who was sentenced to 12 months home detention in May, did not appear in court for the appeal.

Ellis is expected to deliver his judgment on 6 December.

Source

• Catholic News Agency
• ABC
• Image: CNN International