AUSTRALIA
Lawyers Weekly
March 5, 2020
By Naomi Neilson
With the special hearing to determine George Pell’s hearing approaching fast, Sydney law professors have looked into whether or not the cardinal stands a chance.
The High Court of Australia has been asked to decide whether the Court of Appeal of Victoria (VSCA) was right in finding, by majority, that it was open to the jury at Cardinal Pell’s trial to convict him of sexually abusing two young children.
Ahead of the Full Court sitting at Parliament House on March 11 and 12, professors in Sydney Law School Andrew Dyer and Professor David Hammer argue that if the HCA grants Cardinal Pell special leave to appeal, it should reject his argument that VSCA majority reversed the onus of proof when reaching the conclusion that it did.
“[Cardinal] Pell’s claim that the VSCA majority reversed the onus of proof is dubious,” Mr Dyer and Professor Hammer wrote. “But the evidence that Pell had no opportunity to offend was strong; and it does seem open to HCA plausibly to insist Cardinal Pell’s convictions were unreasonable. Against that are considerations of judicial restraint.”
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.