Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIEFEL CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE, NETTLE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJ

GEORGE PELL APPLICANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12 Date of Hearing: 11 & 12 March 2020 Date of Judgment: 7 April 2020 M112/2019

ORDER

1. Special leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal treated as instituted and heard instanter and allowed.

3. Set aside order 2 of the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 21 August 2019 and, in its place, order that:

(a) the appeal be allowed; and

(b) the appellant's convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria

Representation

B W Walker SC with R B Shann for the applicant (instructed by Galbally & O'Bryan)

K E Judd QC with M J Gibson QC and A S Ellis for the respondent (instructed by Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Pell v The Queen

Criminal law – Sexual offences against children – Appeal against conviction by jury on ground that verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to whole of evidence – Where prosecution case wholly dependent upon acceptance of truthfulness and reliability of complainant's account – Where jury assessed complainant's evidence as credible and reliable – Where witnesses gave unchallenged evidence of specific recollections, practices and routines inconsistent with acceptance of complainant's account ("unchallenged inconsistent evidence") – Where Court of Appeal required to take into account forensic disadvantage experienced by applicant – Whether prosecution negatived reasonable possibility that applicant did not commit offences – Whether Court of Appeal required applicant to establish offending impossible to raise reasonable doubt – Whether unchallenged inconsistent evidence required jury, acting rationally, to have entertained doubt as to applicant's guilt.