A thread about yesterday. In 2018, I attended the final submissions in DPP vs #Pell. The last thing that Pell's defence presented to the jury was this summary of the principle of reasonable doubt:
- It did not happen: Not Guilty
- It possibly happened: Not Guilty
- It probably happened: Not Guilty
- It almost certainly happened, with a reasonable doubt: Not Guilty
- It possibly happened: Not Guilty
- It probably happened: Not Guilty
- It almost certainly happened, with a reasonable doubt: Not Guilty
The jury were made painstakingly aware of the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict. After months of careful consideration of the evidence, and three and a half days of deliberation, they deemed that that standard was met.
Their verdict was overruled, as @MelissaLDavey pointed out, by the only court which did not view the victim's evidence. As @luciemorrismarr asked yesterday, what is the point of the jury system?
Another question that has been raised by many: what message does this send to victims of historical sexual abuse? J, who sits at the centre of this case, was called "thoroughly credible and reliable" in the High Court's reasons for judgment. Yet, George Pell walks free today.
Yesterday, the High Court said to J, and to Bernie, and to Pell's other victims in Ballarat, and to all victims of sexual abuse yet to come forward:
It does not matter how credible or honest you are. It does not matter if you are believed by a jury of your peers. Your years of pain mean nothing in the eyes of the law, because you cannot prove your pain to the required standard, no matter what.
This message comes despite changes to the law as a result of the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse, and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. As @ChrissieFoster7 said, "all that effort, and we see this."
In a statement last night, J said, "I understand why criminal cases must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. No-one wants to live in a society where people can be imprisoned without due and proper process. This is a basic civil liberty."
"But the price we pay for weighting the system in favour of the accused is that many sexual offences against children go unpunished." As J has done, we must accept the High Court's ruling. But we do not have to accept that the system cannot be improved.
Yesterday begged many questions but one thing it said for certain is that the laws around historical sexual abuse—which leave victims in the legal limbo of being believed while their abusers walk free—are still in need of reform.
I hope, if any good can be said to have come from yesterday, that it may have put us on track for that change. @RapeReform @VicLawReform
