The Catholic Weekly 5 September 2021

catholicweekly.com.au 14 5, September, 2021 V ista The case that should never have been the final appeal. They were unanimous in their judgment signing on to just one state- ment of reasons ordering that Pell’s “convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place.” At trial, the defence called no evidence. The prosecu- tion’s main witness was the complainant ‘J’ (his name was and remains suppressed) who described what he said he recalled having happened to him and his friend, the now deceased ‘R,’ in 1996 when they were 13 years of age. But the prosecution also called, at the request of the defence, a lot of other witnesses who were involved with the sol- emn masses celebrated in St Patrick’s Cathedral Mel- bourne in late 1996 – sac- ristan, MC, choristers, choir master and organist. Given that it was alleged that four of the five offences were said to have occurred in the priests’ sacristy shortly after mass when usually you expect to find altar servers in attendance, it was surprising that the police did not inter- view any altar servers and the prosecution was not minded to call any altar servers until the defence forced their hand. By the time of the second trial, two altar servers recom- mended for inclusion by the defence were called by the prosecution to give evidence. One of these altar servers, Jeff Connor, had a comprehensive diary which allowed the pros- ecution to identify the only possible dates for the offences to have occurred: 15 and 22 December 1996. The other altar server, Dan- iel McGlone who is now a bar- rister, provided evidence of his attendance at one of these masses where he and his mother met Archbishop Pell on the steps after mass. The High Court noted: “The trial judge held that evidence adduced by the prosecution that was inconsistent with, or likely to contradict, J’s ac- count of events, was relevant- ly “unfavourable”. His Honour granted leave to the prosecu- tor to cross-examine a num- ber of witnesses (and fore- shadowed the grant of leave in relation to other witnesses)” with respect to six topics. Despite having obtained the leave to cross-examine, the prosecution never took up that option and so never chal- lenged the version of events given by the opportunity wit- nesses. The six topics included: ‘(i) whether (Pell) was always in the company of another, in- cluding (the MC) Portelli or (the sacristan) Potter, when robed; (ii) whether (Pell) al- ways greeted congregants on the steps of the Cathedral fol- lowing Sunday solemn Mass.’ The High Court noted that this grant of leave to cross-exam- ine ‘reflected the trial judge’s satisfaction that the antici- pated evidence, if accepted, excluded the realistic possi- bility of the offending having occurred as J described it.’ The High Court noted, “The honesty of the opportunity witnesses was not in ques- tion.” In its conclusion, the High Court realising that the crown case was full of holes decided to focus on just a few essen- tials. The court saw no need to address all the improb- abilities or impossibilities raised by the defence. The court said: ‘The likelihood of two choirboys in their gowns being able to slip away from the procession without detec- tion; of finding altar wine in an unlocked cupboard; and of the applicant being able to manoeuvre his vestments to expose his penis are consid- erations that may be put to one side.” There was no need to consider the possibility or likelihood of these matters. Having reviewed all the evi- dence andhaving accepted for the purposes of argument that “the Court of Appeal majority did not err in holding that J’s evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt” the Court went on to conclude: “It remains that the ev- idence of witnesses, whose honesty was not in question, (i) placed (Pell) on the steps of the Cathedral for at least ten minutes after Mass on 15 and 22 December 1996; (ii) placed him in the company of Portel- li when he returned to the priests’ sacristy to remove his vestments; and (iii) described continuous traffic into and out of the priests’ sacristy for ten to 15 minutes after the altar serv- ers completed their bows to the crucifix.” So that was it – game, set and match. On the evidence led in the case, there was no way that Pell and the two boys could have been alone togeth- er in the priests’ sacristy soon after mass. There was neither time nor place for the offenc- es to be committed. Absent both time and place in any narrative and you are in the realm of fantasy or false mem- ory. The most basic police work would have disclosed this early in an investigation, particularly in a properly run investigation which had the huge resources committed as the Victoria Police dedicated to Operation Tethering which had Pell as its sole focus. When the complainant J first presented to police on 18 June 2015, he had a fair- ly simple account of how he, his friend R and Cardinal Pell came to be in the priests’ sac- risty at St Patrick’s Cathedral on their own while Pell did dreadful things to them. They were finishing mass, and as usual, they were in an internal procession going directly from the sanctuary to the choir room via a corri- dor which passed the priests’ sacristy which they had nev- er previously entered. They would have taken only 56 steps to get there. The two boys started ferreting around going to places they should not go, and they discovered some altar wine in the priests’ sacristy and started swilling it. Mind you, even this ac- count was problematic. The High Court in Canberra.The unanimous dismissal of Cardinal George Pell’s convictions and sentencing was a remarkable legal rebuke of almost every aspect of the case. Cardinal Pell arrives at the County Court in Melbourne on 27 February 2019. He was jailed after being found guilty of child sexual abuse. PHOTOS:ABOVE: JOHN O’NEILL,WIKIMEDIA COMMONS, CC BY-SA 3.0; RIGHT: CNS, DANIEL POCKETT,AAP IMAGESVIA REUTERS ‘Cancel Quiducient omnissu mquisqui acculli anderupic tem laut lament. Porent lam, conseritat pelent lam a nobis et eius. Ciaturi- bus ut untiberum vel iuria do- lorernam sitibus aut aliciae nonse- quiam,Peligenditate pro blaborro “In its conclusion, the High Court realising that the crown case was full of holes decided to focus on just a few essentials.”