Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12

Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12

The evidence as a whole was not capable of excluding a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt; the unchallenged and credible evidence of established practice, church protocol, and the activities following Mass was inconsistent with the complainant's account of the offending. There is a significant possibility...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: George Pell; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Special Leave to Appeal; Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria (court of Appeal)
Outcome
appeal allowed; convictions quashed; acquittals entered
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Sexual Offences Against Children, Unreasonable Verdict, Standard and Burden of Proof, Video Evidence, Appellate Review, Credibility Assessment
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Sexual Offences Against Children Unreasonable Verdict Standard and Burden of Proof Video Evidence Appellate Review Credibility Assessment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Pell

Applicant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Special Leave to Appeal; Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution negatived the reasonable possibility that the applicant did not commit the offences
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the standard of proof and forensic disadvantage

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence as a whole was not capable of excluding a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt; the unchallenged and credible evidence of established practice, church protocol, and the activities following Mass was inconsistent with the complainant's account of the offending. There is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof. Hence, the verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, and the convictions must be quashed and acquittals entered.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; convictions quashed; acquittals entered

Orders

  • Special leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal allowed; convictions quashed and judgments of acquittal entered in their place.