George Pell seeks appeal in High Court

Cardinal George Pell is seeking leave to appeal his child sex abuse convictions before the High Court of Australia.

Naomi Neilson • 17 September 2019 • Big Law

If the leave to appeal is granted, it will be cardinal Pell’s final opportunity to challenge the convictions. However, there is no guarantee the High Court will hear the appeal.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

The disgraced cardinal and former adviser to the Pope is currently serving a six-year sentence after he was convicted of one count of sexual penetration of a child under 16 at the St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne, as well as four counts of committing an indecent act with, or in the presence of, a child.

The non-parole period was set at three years and eight months and the cardinal was registered as a sex offender for life and required to hand over forensic samples in accordance with that registration.

In handing down the sentence last March, County Court of Victoria Chief Judge Peter Kidd said: “On any view, you seized upon the opportunity…to abuse them. Despite there being no grooming, you had time to reflect on your behaviour as you offended, but you failed to detest.”

More to come.

VIEW ALL

naomi.neilson@momentummedia.com.au

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.

You can email Naomi at: naomi.neilson@momentummedia.com.au

Anonymous Thursday, 19 September 2019

Exactly. We are all biased and seek confirmation. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

0
Anonymous Thursday, 19 September 2019

Senator Hanson alleges females are lying in the Family Court. Are we to believe complainants are not lying in the criminal courts?

0
Anonymous Wednesday, 18 September 2019

One hopes they grant leave. This is only one of many cases where people (usually men) are being convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness. It is not consistent with the separation of powers implied in State Constitution Acts for State Parliaments to order Judges not to warn juries of the dangers of convicting on such solitary evidence.

0
Nicholas Wednesday, 18 September 2019

The Victorian Supreme Court judgement was not particularly convincing. Essentially has boiled down to picking who is the most sympathetic witness. And ignoring a score of other witnesses that supported the Cardinal (which is very disturbing).

1
MICHAEL Tuesday, 17 September 2019

There is no solid evidence not witnesses to Pell's alleged offending. The two judges upholding conviction found the complainant was not a fantasist. But they may be victims of a convincing story and deluded by their own anti-clerical bias. There may be to be a hidden agenda at work.

1
- Isaac Wednesday, 18 September 2019
  
  Whatever confirms your biases
  
  0
  - Paul Trang Thursday, 26 September 2019
    
    Well, because no one knows the truth except the complainant and the accused. Therefore in a fair trial we must have a solid proof but in this case, it is not at all. Who can defend? Your fate is sealed!
    
    0

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!

Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

SECTIONS

MORE

George Pell seeks appeal in High Court

Naomi Neilson

OUR PLATFORMS AND BRANDS

EVENTS AND SUMMITS

PODCASTS

LEARNING AND EDUCATION

MOMENTUM MARKETS NETWORK

LINKS

STAY CONNECTED