Cardinal Acquitted of Sex Charges

Written by Natalie Teng

Micheal Dodge/Getty Images

Cardinal George Pell, pictured in December 2018, when he was convicted on
five counts of sexual abuse.

Australia's High Court dismissed sexual assault charges earlier this month against the highest profile Catholic Church official to ever be charged with sexual offense allegations. On April 7, Cardinal George Pell, the former Vatican’s Secretariat for the Economy and former archbishop of Melbourne and Sydney, had his 2018 guilty verdict by a jury dismissed due to “‘compounding improbabilities’ caused by conflicting accounts from Pell’s main accuser and other witnesses” (NYT). However, the testimony of the main accuser, in which the judges deemed crucial to the entire case, has never been released to the public, not in partial nor redacted form. Therefore, no one outside the court can corroborate such claims, and sparking additional scrutiny over a case that has been embroiled in controversy and secrecy from the beginning.

In June 2017, Pell was arrested based on several allegations of sexual assault during his time as a priest in Australia. Prosecutors sought to pursue multiple charges against Pell relating to these allegations. However, many of these charges were later dismissed due to lack of witness credibility, and the remaining cases were split into two separate trials (Guardian). The court issued a suppression order while both cases were in progress and barred journalists from reporting on the trials and allegations against Pell. The order covered seemingly trivial details, such as the number of people involved in the original complaint and the suppression order itself, claiming this was done to prevent jury biases and to protect the identities of those who came forth with evidence. The scope of the order not only covered Australian news services, but also larger international news publications (NYT). In one such case, a book titled Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell by journalist Louise Milligan was taken off shelves in order to avoid being in contempt of the court (NYT). As described in a New York Times article, the order was both to be revered and criticized:

To some, that suppression of information will be seen as a triumph of justice, a noble win for local self-determination and the rule of law. To others it will be seen as an act that, however well intended, undermines transparency and accountability in a case that much of the world would desperately like to discuss (NYT).

In December 2018, Pell was convicted on five counts of “historical child sexual offences” (NPR). However, this verdict itself was not reported until two months later, as a second trial against Pell was allegedly still ongoing (NYT).

The panel of seven judges on the High Court acquitted Pell of his guilty charges on the basis of discrepancies in witness testimonies and that of the main accuser, who was thirteen at the time of his alleged abuse in 1996. However, such testimonies have never been released to the public in any form, a decision that has stoked controversy. In an interview with the New York Times, Jason Bosland, a law professor at Melbourne University said, “The only way the judicial branch of government is held accountable is through the principle of open justice, and that requires the public to be given as much information as possible” (NYT). The court stated that its refusal to release this information was done in order to comply with Australian sexual abuse laws, under which identities of child victims must be protected. However, the court’s lack of transparency promotes a public distrust with the Australian judicial system and undermines its accountability. Critics claim that the sexual abuse laws could have been upheld even if the testimony were to be released to the public. This, combined with the complete override of a jury verdict, is leading many to question the power of the judges and how much they value accountability to the public (NYT).

The suppression order particularly relates to how the changing nature of media as a platform for human interaction from print to internet and social media affects politics, economics, and social affairs (V.C). In the past, suppression orders were easier to enforce and control when the media was only done in print. However, with this case, while Australian and large news publications were not allowed to report on the subject, it was harder to enforce such orders on the numerous smaller online news sources around the world from reporting (NYT). This also raises the question on how much a government should be able to censor information and how much power the courts and judicial systems should have, especially in the name of maintaining trust with the public.

Vocabulary

• Suppression order: order restricting certain information from being made public, also known as a gag order
• High Court: highest court in Australia's judicial system

Discussion Questions

1. How much power should local jurisdictions and governments be able to have over international news publications?
2. What level of transparency is needed to establish open justice? What other components would be necessary to establish this?