Professor Hunter argued that there is a mountain of highly contested factual and legal details involved in responding to the question of whether the jury failed. At the centre, however, is uncertainty of whether the prosecution will benefit from the uncertainty.

“Clearly, establishing an informed and considered view of the evidence is not achieved by singular acceptance of one or two witnesses’ accounts,” Professor Hunter said.

“Nor is it relevant whether a high-ranking cleric would or would not behave in the way alleged. George Pell is not being tried for the crimes of others. The Victorian Court of Appeal divided 2:1 to uphold the jury verdicts. It is reasonably likely there will be some differences of opinions within the High Court, though nothing can be predicted.”

Professor Hunter said many of the “pressure points” in the High Court’s decision reliy on the jury’s important role in the trial and how they approached the evidence.

There will be an examination of the jury’s ability to decide, based on group deliberation, community-informed and everyday life experiences and jurors’ common sense, which “makes it a highly valued common law institution” within criminal law.

This leaves the question open. Now that it is before the High Court, did the majority of the jury fail to recognise there is evidence that established a reasonable doubt?

“If the jury did fail to recognise evidence, it could not find the former cardinal guilty of the five offences,” Professor Hunter said.

VIEW ALL

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.