What just happened to Cardinal Pell? What’s next?
Reading Time: 2 minutes
Today, Victorian Magistrate Belinda Wallington committed Cardinal George Pell to stand trial on a number of child sex offence charges, while also ruling that there was insufficient evidence for him to stand trial on several other charges. So what is the significance of this, and what happens next?
The Victorian Police had charged Cardinal Pell with a number of child sex offences allegedly committed as far back as the 1970s. In the Committal Hearing presided over by Magistrate Wallington, the prosecution presented the evidence relating to each offence that would be presented if the Cardinal were to stand trial. In Victoria, when a person is charged with a serious criminal offence, a Committal or Preliminary Hearing is conducted by a Magistrate to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for the accused person to be able to be found guilty by a jury in the County or Supreme Courts. Following Cardinal Pell’s Committal Hearing, Magistrate Wallington took two weeks to consider whether, in the case of each alleged offence, the prosecution had evidence that could (not ‘would’) lead a jury properly instructed by a judge to find the accused guilty. In holding that the evidence of one witness was contradictory and thus unlikely to be believed by a jury, Magistrate Wallington illustrated that it is not just the quantity of evidence that matters.
So, having been committed to stand trial by judge and jury, Cardinal Pell was asked to plead guilty or not guilty. He is reported to have ‘shouted’, Not Guilty. A pre-trial or mention hearing in the County Court (Equivalent Courts in other Australian States are known as District Courts) is expected to be held next week. The purpose of the hearing will be to set a time frame for the trial. It is expected that the trial itself is unlikely to begin before late this year.
At the trial, the prosecution will present their evidence and have it tested in cross examination by the Cardinal’s legal team. The defence may present their own evidence and Cardinal Pell may choose to give evidence – although this would allow him to be cross examined by prosecution barristers. Ultimately, what must be kept in mind is that the prosecution bears the onus of proof and must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defence does not have to prove anything. Its role is to cast doubt or counter the evidence presented by the prosecution, making it difficult or impossible for the jury to be persuaded beyond reasonable doubt of the Cardinal’s guilt.
(Visited 14 times, 1 visits today)