Login
Did George Pell’s jury fail the courts?
A law professor has questioned whether the jury in George Pell’s trial failed to find that there was evidence that established reasonable doubt.
Naomi Neilson
A jury trial is considered a “gold standard” for determining justice in criminal cases but at the base of it, jurors are human and are bound to make mistakes. This is the concern of Jill Hunter, a law professor with the UNSW.
“Clearly, establishing an informed and considered view of the evidence is not achieved by singular acceptance of one or two witnesses’ accounts,” Professor Hunter said.
“Nor is it relevant whether a high-ranking cleric would or would not behave in the way alleged. George Pell is not being tried for the crimes of others. The Victorian Court of Appeal divided 2:1 to uphold the jury verdicts. It is reasonably likely there will be some differences of opinions within the High Court, though nothing can be predicted.”
Professor Hunter said many of the “pressure points” in the High Court’s decision reliy on the jury’s important role in the trial and how they approached the evidence.
There will be an examination of the jury’s ability to decide, based on group deliberation, community-informed and everyday life experiences and jurors’ common sense, which “makes it a highly valued common law institution” within criminal law.
This leaves the question open. Now that it is before the High Court, did the majority of the jury fail to recognise there is evidence that established a reasonable doubt?
“If the jury did fail to recognise evidence, it could not find the former cardinal guilty of the five offences,” Professor Hunter said.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
