DPP v Bret Walker: Will the delivery affect the decision?

Over the course of two days, George Pell’s legal team and Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions argued whether the cardinal should be granted special leave to appeal – it was clear which of the parties was favoured.

Naomi Neilson • 16 March 2020 • Big Law

It could be that DPP Kerri Judd stumbled in her arguments a few times – she switched from saying the offending happened within six to seven minutes, to five to six – but the transcripts show that she was interrupted 98 times, to Bret Walker’s 20.

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 High Court of Australia ultimately decided to reserve its decision on whether it will overturn Cardinal Pell’s convictions for child abuse. They have requested both parties supply supplementary material, and at time of writing, Mr Walker had already done so.

The two-day hearing, before the full bench of seven judges, concluded with Mr Walker taking aim at the prosecution’s timeline of events, which he said was “improvised” and a “rickety construction of a Crown case to make something fit that will not fit”.

Mr Walker filled his four hours, as he promised. He was rarely interrupted and when it did happen, it was to clarify his own argument. Ms Judd, on the other hand, had some fiery moments with the full bench – especially Judge Susan Mary Kiefel AC.

One exchange centred around the slip-up around the timing of the offence.

VIEW ALL

Kiefel CJ: As I understand your position, you say it might be more than five to six minutes now, do you?

Ms Judd: I say that this ---

Kiefel CJ: Is that your position, Ms Judd?

Ms Judd: Yes, but I say it still fits with only the five or six minutes.

Kiefel CJ: Ms Judd, was it put to any witness that it could be more than five or six minutes?

Ms Judd: Well, it is put that going over to the ---

Kiefel CJ: The question is not a difficult one, Ms Judd. Was it put to any witness that it could be more than five to six minutes?

Ms Judd: Well, it is put that going over to the ---

This exchange goes for a little longer, and it’s not the only one full of interruptions. Ms Judd experienced this much more than her counterpart, at times only getting just some sentences out, compared to Mr Walker’s paragraphs and paragraphs of arguments.

We’re not saying it’s because she’s a woman, as was alleged in a report a few months ago. We’re also not saying it’s because the bench of seven judges are pro-Pell. We’re saying the prosecution had a harder time, and it shows.

It will be interesting to see how this impacts the decision.

More to come.

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

Kerri Friday, 03 April 2020

Clearly this was an attack by the High Court on this Counsel merely because she was a red haired woman.
Thank you lawyers weekly for your strong and sensible stand for justice .

-2
JPak Friday, 20 March 2020

It could be because Ms Judd's argument was much weaker.

9
Macron Tuesday, 17 March 2020

I get the impression that Lawyers Weekly is anti-Pell. You should be pro-Justice and most jurists I know cannot work out how he was convicted on the "evidence".

12
Qld Barrister Tuesday, 17 March 2020

Ever thought the Prosecution argument was crap and a person is in jail based on the crap argument.
Research Model Litigant.

12
- Anonymous Tuesday, 17 March 2020
  
  It wasn't that good to be called "crap".
  
  The VSCA just went off the rails...
  
  5
gerard Monday, 16 March 2020

I thought that was a report about female judges being interrupted not female laywers.

4
Anonymous Monday, 16 March 2020

"We’re not saying it’s because she’s a woman, as was alleged in a report a few months ago. We’re also not saying it’s because the bench of seven judges are pro-Pell". No, not at all. "Person up" (to woke the expression): the party who gets the "harder time" is usually the one that the whose argument is the weakest.

11
John Sweep Monday, 16 March 2020

I wish that the author of this article showed the Chief Justice of Australia respect for the onerous job she has to do, and the unshakeably proper way that she does it.

10
- ARB Monday, 30 March 2020
  
  You're forgetting the fictional judgment of Love v Commonwealth of Australia
  
  0
Layman Monday, 16 March 2020

what difference does it make....5 to 6 minutes, 6 to 7 minutes or even 1 to 2 minutes when a crime is still a crime regardless

0
- Anonymous Monday, 16 March 2020
  
  The fuss about the timing is all about the fact that normally the sacristy was (a) locked and then (b) busy. So there was just no opportunity for it to happen. In response the prosecution tried to squeeze it in somehow, either by arguing that it happened before the altar servers returned (which is when it was unlocked) or after - which is the current position. That's a very simplified account, but it shows you why people were going into detail over this point - and the judges, too, were asking pertinent questions.
  
  1
Legal Fictions Monday, 16 March 2020

What it shows with great clarity is the 'free ride' Mr. (I can walk on water) Walker SC gets from our 'independent' High Court. Apparently nit picking a timeline of events (by 1 or 2 minutes) going back more than 25 years you can render a credible complainant's testimony unsupportable? This despite the fact that 12 jurors actually unanimously found guilt.
Pell has played the legal system for years with the bottomless pit of money from Catholic Church, I'm not holding my breath the Establishment will do away with its 'annual red masses' anytime soon.

2
- Brent Tuesday, 17 March 2020
  
  Because the complainant wasn’t credible.
  
  0
- Anonimo Tuesday, 17 March 2020
  
  What on earth does the Red Mass have to do with it?
  
  3
- Hayden Monday, 13 April 2020
  
  Pell wasn’t funded by the church.
  Secondly, the charges should never have been laid. That’s how bad this case was on the threshold question of lack of opportunity to commit the offences alleged.
  
  And Legal Fictions your approach is the reason why Witness J was not treated properly by the legal process as this matter should never have proceeded.
  
  3
John Murray Monday, 16 March 2020

Glad to see the article not arguing she was interrupted *because* she was a woman.... especially given the exchanges with Kiefel (another woman).

10

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

Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

SECTIONS

MORE

DPP v Bret Walker: Will the delivery affect the decision?

Naomi Neilson

OUR PLATFORMS AND BRANDS

EVENTS AND SUMMITS

PODCASTS

LEARNING AND EDUCATION

MOMENTUM MARKETS NETWORK

LINKS

STAY CONNECTED