Pell v The Queen

Facts

Cardinal George Pell was convicted by a jury in the County Court of Victoria on five counts of child sexual abuse alleged to have occurred in the sacristy of St Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne, in 1996 and 1997. The Victorian Court of Appeal, by majority, dismissed his appeal against conviction, holding that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable. Pell sought special leave to appeal to the High Court, contending that the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct standard when reviewing the reasonableness of the jury's verdicts under s 276(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic). 2. Whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt, given the opportunity evidence and the character of the complainant's testimony.

Holding

The High Court unanimously allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and directed that verdicts of acquittal be entered. The Court held that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have had a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt.

Ratio decidendi

An appellate court reviewing the reasonableness of a jury verdict must itself examine the evidence and determine whether it was open to the jury, acting rationally, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt; where the prosecution case depends on the acceptance of a complainant's account and that account is contradicted by unchallenged 'opportunity' evidence that makes the offending impossible or highly improbable, the verdict is unreasonable within the meaning of the relevant appellate provision.

Obiter dicta

The Court noted the difficulty inherent in appellate review of credibility findings made by a jury, while affirming that such deference does not immunise a verdict from scrutiny where the evidence, taken as a whole, is incapable of excluding a reasonable doubt.

Significance

Pell v The Queen is the leading High Court authority on the standard of appellate review of jury verdicts for unreasonableness in Australian criminal law, confirming that appellate courts must conduct a substantive independent assessment of the evidence rather than merely deferring to the jury's credibility findings.

Key authorities

• M v The Queen M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487applied
• SKA v The Queen SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400applied
• MFA v The Queen MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606applied
• Baini v The Queen Baini v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 469considered
• Pell v The Queen Pell v The Queen (2019) 59 VR 1overruled