Cardinal George Pell has child sex abuse convictions upheld

Published on 6 November 2019 by BrickTop

Filed under News

Last modified 19 October 2020

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 182 times

Cardinal George Pell has child sex abuse convictions upheld by Australian court

Cardinal George Pell, the most senior Catholic ever to be found guilty of child sex abuse, has had his convictions upheld by an Australian court. Pope Francis’s former finance minister was guilty of molesting two 13-year-old choirboys in Melbourne’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996 and 1997 in December. At the time, Pell had just become archbishop of Australia’s second largest city and had set up a world-first compensation arrangement for victims of clergy sexual abuse. Now the Victoria state Court of Appeal has upheld the unanimous verdicts the jury gave last year by a 2-1 majority ruling. Pell, arrived at the court in a prison van, showed no emotion when Chief Justice Anne Ferguson read the verdict to a packed courtroom but bowed his head moments later.

The 78-year-old wore a cleric’s collar but not his cardinal’s ring.  He was led away by a guard after the verdict which his lawyers are expected to appeal in the High Court, Australia’s final arbiter.  The Vatican, which is conducting its own investigation into sex abuse allegations against Pell, is expected to comment on the court’s ruling at a later date.  Pell is no longer a member of Pope Francis’s council of cardinals or a Vatican official.

The former archbishop’s lawyers had to prove to the appeals court that the jury that unanimously convicted him in December must have held a reasonable doubt about his guilt. An earlier trial had ended in a deadlocked jury. An 11-to-1 majority decision to either convict or acquit could have been accepted, but at least two jurors held out. Prosecutors replied that the evidence of more than 20 priests, choristers, altar servers and church officials showed there were “possible hindrances” to the prosecution case, but did not preclude the jury from being satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.