(Cardinal) George Pell's full sentencing, as issued by Chief Judge Peter Kidd

ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) ^ | 13th March 2019

[naturalman1975]

Cardinal George Pell has been sentenced to six years' jail for the sexual abuse of two Melbourne choirboys in the 1990s. This is the transcript provided by the County Court of Chief Judge Peter Kidd's full sentencing remarks:

Warning: Contains details that may distress some readers.

Cardinal George Pell, on 11 December 2018 you were convicted by a jury of five charges of sexual offending by you against two young boys in 1996 and 1997 in St Patrick's Cathedral, East Melbourne.

You were convicted of one offence of Sexual Penetration of a Child under 16 years and four offences of committing an Indecent Act with or in the presence of a Child under 16 years.

The jury who unanimously convicted you was comprised of 12 men and women, randomly selected from the community.

Initially, there was a jury of 14 who heard the evidence and arguments of counsel, and who received directions of law from me, over the course of some five weeks.

The jury was then reduced to 12 by ballot, at the time of the deliberations. The jury deliberated for almost five days, before returning their verdicts of guilty on all of the charges.

[naturalman1975]

Go to the link to read the whole sentencing - and I think anybody who is genuinely interested or concerned about the case should do so.

I have made no secret of the fact that I have my doubts about this verdict (which will be appealed) and that I have even more doubts that whether guilty or innocent, Cardinal Pell was able to receive a fair trial. The case is being appealed - that court process begins in June - and I have reasonable confidence in the appeals process. But while I say everybody should read the entire sentencing, I wanted to cite here, a couple of passages that I found of particular interest in what the Judge had to say. The following in bold are direct quotes from this transcript.

Finally, with respect to these preliminary observations, over the last period we have witnessed, outside of this court and within our community, examples of a "witch-hunt" or "lynch mob" mentality in relation to Cardinal Pell.

I utterly condemn such behaviour. That has nothing to do with justice or a civilised society. The courts stand as a bulwark against such irresponsible behaviour.

.....

I must at law give full effect to the jury's verdict. It is not for me to second guess the verdict. What this means is that I am required to accept, and act upon, J's account. That is what the law requires of me and that is what I will do.

[Gay State Conservative]

I must at law give full effect to the jury's verdict. It is not for me to second guess the verdict.

This quote suggests to me..a true layman...that the judge has doubts about the verdict.If,by chance,my suspicion is correct then that brings to mind what I think is an important point.

And that is...unless I'm mistaken judges in US courts have the absolute power to declare a criminal defendant "not guilty" at any point during a trial.Not "guilty",just "not guilty".I'm not sure how often it's done...assuming that they do,in fact,have that power.

Of course Australian law is different. It may be different enough to deny that power to Australian judges.

But if they do have such authority one might wonder why it didn't happen in this case.

Of course there are several assumptions in my thinking that might be incorrect but...

[Karl Spooner]

All things considered, I impose the following sentences upon you.

Individual sentences

On charge 1, being the indecent act against R, I convict and sentence you to two years and six months' imprisonment.

On charge 2, being the sexual penetration against J, I convict and sentence you to four years' imprisonment.

On charge 3, being the indecent act against J, where you touched his genitals, I convict and sentence you to two years and six months' imprisonment.

On charge 4, being the indecent act against J, where you touched your own genitals in the presence of J, I convict and sentence you to 15 months' imprisonment.

On charge 5, being the indecent against J during the second episode, I convict and sentence you to 18 months' imprisonment.

Total effective sentence

I direct that the sentence of four years imposed on charge 2 is the base sentence.

I further direct that 12 months of the sentence imposed on charge 1, four months of the sentence imposed on charge 3, two months of the sentence imposed on charge 4 and six months of the sentence imposed on charge 5 are to be served cumulatively upon charge 2 and upon each other.

This means that I sentence you to a total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment.

[naturalman1975]

Of course Australian law is different. It may be different enough to deny that power to Australian judges.

But if they do have such authority one might wonder why it didn't happen in this case.

It is possible for a Judge to do this under Australian law, but it is exceptionally rare. The threshold to do it is extraordinarily high.

"A judge may direct a verdict of acquittal only if there is a defect in the evidence in the Crown case such that, taken at its highest, it will not sustain a verdict of guilty. If there is evidence, even though it is tenuous or inherently weak or vague, that is capable of supporting a verdict of guilty, the case must be left to the jury to determine: Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; 50 A Crim R 157; [1990] HCA 51."

Otherwise, it is to be left to appeals to a higher court to make this determination, which is the situation in this case.

[BlackVeil]

I, too, am concerned about this trial. There are so many suppression orders about so many aspects of the evidence, that I wonder what the real situation might be.