Pell v The Queen

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal by George Pell against his convictions for historical sexual offences. The prosecution's case relied entirely on the complainant's testimony, which the jury found to be credible and reliable. However, Pell argued that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, particularly in light of unchallenged evidence regarding specific practices and routines that were inconsistent with the complainant's account.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Appeal had correctly assessed the reasonableness of the jury's verdict. This involved determining whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof by negativing any reasonable possibility that Pell did not commit the offences, or if the Court of Appeal had improperly shifted the onus onto Pell to prove the impossibility of his guilt. The Court also considered the weight to be given to unchallenged evidence that presented "solid obstacles" to the prosecution's case and whether the jury, acting rationally, should have entertained doubt. Furthermore, the Court examined the role of video recordings of witness testimony in the appellate court's review function.

The High Court reasoned that the jury's assessment of the complainant's credibility, while important, did not operate in a vacuum. The Court emphasised that appellate courts must consider the entirety of the evidence, including any evidence that casts doubt on the prosecution's case. In this instance, the unchallenged evidence concerning Pell's routines and the availability of the premises created significant inconsistencies with the complainant's narrative. The Court found that this evidence presented a "realistic possibility" that the offending could not have occurred as described, and that the jury may have overlooked or given insufficient weight to these "compounding improbabilities." The Court also noted the significant forensic disadvantage Pell experienced due to his decision not to give evidence.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed Pell's convictions, and entered judgments of acquittal. The Court concluded that, when viewed in its totality, the evidence did not establish Pell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted.