The Decision to Free Cardinal Pell Was The Correct One

Cardinal George Pell's conviction for child sexual abuse has been overturned by the High Court of Australia.

Let me start by saying that I don't think any punishment is too strong for child sexual abuse. In my mind it is as bad as murder - if not worse.

So why did the High Court overturn his conviction? To put it simply - reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt is the accepted measure of justice in the Western legal system. To convict a person, their guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers.

Pell was convicted by a jury of his peers, and his conviction was upheld on appeal.

During the trial, evidence was presented about Pell performing the abuse in certain areas of the building. The evidence also said Pell committed the abuse while donning Bishop's garb.

The High Court effectively said that reasonable doubt should have arisen about these allegations. Firstly, the area of the building where the abuse allegedly occurred would have been frequented by others at the time of the abuse. And secondly, the robes Pell was wearing at the time would have made the physical act of abuse very difficult to carry out.

The evidence about the location and clothing does not appear to be in dispute - yet the jury seemingly ignored its ramifications, apparently basing its conviction almost solely on its perception of the credibility of the accuser.

The High Court in effect agreed with Justice Weinberg, who allowed Pell's first appeal on the grounds of reasonable doubt that the offences could have taken place, but was out-voted by the other two justices.

The jury was mistaken in convicting Pell when they ignored evidence that shed reasonable doubt about the offences being committed by Pell in that specific location at that particular time, and while wearing the clothes he was wearing.

Our legal system does not deal with absolute concepts - it works on probabilities. 'Reasonable doubt' effectively says that the probability of the offence being committed under the given circumstances is less than 50%.

That is why the the High Court set George Pell free.