George Pell’s counsel withdrew his bail application today. Pell will be remanded in custody awaiting a sentence that almost certainly will include a long term of imprisonment.
This is one of the most significant moments in Australian criminal history, the conviction of a Roman Catholic cardinal for child sex offending. It has not happened anywhere on the planet.
Amid the shock and the superlatives, I fear this episode will place the real story in the shadow. What we have learned from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses of Child Sex Abuse will be overwhelmed by the magnitude of Pell’s conviction. Victims will continue to be left as line items on a profit and loss statement. Those seeking compensation under the National Redress Scheme will continue to be put on hold.
Other guilty institutions will skate away.
The history is clear. In Victoria and as far as I can tell anywhere in Australia, no Catholic priest was charged let alone convicted of a child sex offence until 1979. That in itself is a damning statistic given what we know of the rampant pedophilia of outrageously prolific offenders like Monsignor John Day, Father Ronald Pickering and Gerard Ridsdale.
But it also speaks of failures elsewhere. Simply put, that level of offending could not occur without failures within law enforcement and more broadly across the criminal justice system.
What is known is that elements within the Victoria Police Force up to and including the Chief Commissioner at the time, Reg Jackson, conspired to prevent the criminal prosecution of Monsignor Day in Mildura in 1972.
Father Ronald Pickering fled the country. When his whereabouts became known, the process of his arrest in Great Britain and subsequent extradition back to Victoria was considered too costly. The man police darkly referred to as a “two (victims) a day man” was left to his own devices. Pickering remained in the UK in full view but somehow beyond the reach of the law until his death in 2009.
Many of Ridsdale’s crimes against children were not subject to any acceptable form of investigative rigour. In the 1980s, victims’ statements alleging Ridsdale committed the worst of his crimes were lost by police. Meanwhile other statements alleging offences of lesser gravity became the basis of his first prosecution (Ridsdale was the second priest to be charged with child sex offences in Victoria in 1989).
Whether it was a matter of ineptitude or something much worse is a matter that requires further investigation. If history tells us anything, it is that the Victoria Police Force is not especially curious about examining its historical failings.
What we do know is that where police won’t act, offending will escalate. It is a one-way ticket to a crime spree.
It is not difficult to understand. Convince an armed robber that he can commit his crimes without consequence, and he will not only continue to commit armed robberies, he will continue to commit more of them.
What happened in Mildura in 1972 told the clergy within the Ballarat diocese and elsewhere in Victoria that they were practically above the law. The clerics who preyed upon children would not be pursued. The clerics who were complicit or who chose to look the other way would not be held to account.
In this context, the number of victims grew from one to ten to a hundred and finally to the point where not even the authority and weight of a royal commission could keep count.
The Mildura conspiracy effectively created an inducement to offend, a standing offer of immunity, extended to some of the worst child sex offenders this country has ever seen.
The protection of pedophile priests and complicit clerics undermines public trust and confidence in police in ways that more orthodox forms of police corruption do not. While morally indefensible, we can at least understand how police might be bribed to look the other way in the lucrative drug trade. How it was that police were protecting child sex offenders defies comprehension. And without public confidence, police cannot operate.
Unsurprisingly, the Victoria Police Force is yet to issue an apology for its role in this epidemic of child sex offending. It has barely acknowledged its culpability and quietly waits for all the fuss to die down.
The Royal Commission found that child sex offending was rife in all manner of institutions: religious and secular, government and non-government.
The Catholic Church was a principal offender but pound for pound no institution was worse than the Salvation Army. The principals of the dismal cult of the Jehovah’s Witnesses when presented with the sordid details of child sex abuse on their watch, found it beneath themselves to offer even an apology.
We need to look beyond the headlines. The real story here is not that one of the Vatican’s most senior men is set to go behind bars.
The real story is that the nation’s children, our most precious asset, were not valued. They were not protected.
The real story is, as it was before Pell’s conviction, that children were not believed. They were not believed by law enforcement, they were not believed in the courts, they were often not believed by their own parents.
Those who defend Pell today are acting in precisely the same way as the Catholic Church and every other offending institution has done in the past.
They are telling Pell’s victims (one who is deceased) “We do not believe you.”
After a three-year royal commission and a national outpouring of grief and sorrow, we have learned everything and nothing.
This column first appeared in The Australian 27 February 2018.
Seems to me Pell is getting preferential treatment from our justice system. Any other convicted paedophile, like Fardon for instance, would not be released pending an appeal, so what part of ‘paedophile’ are people in high places having trouble comprehending?
As a mother I object to his lawyer speaking of the sexual assault of a child as “plain vanilla sexual penetration” as if the act itself was not worth a guilty conviction. I don’t give a rats that Howard, Abbott, etc need to still believe in their God-man, the only thing that’s important is that the victims of Pell’s depravity get some sort of real justice & that his sentencing will not be interfered with by some kind of Vatican based spiders web.
Given Morrison has decided not to strip him of his Order of Australia until after the appeal, I remain uneasy about what he knows about Pell’s appeal in advance. Nothing would surprise me.
Indeed, Bella and something tells me his Appeal may well have some success. So many high profile people sticking up for him and also declaring him innocent. Cheers
But he isn’t & the people defending him are unconscionable.
I think he is still in jail, Bella. I too thought his lawyers comment beyond the pale, Bella and still do in relation to a crime like this but apparently in the legal fraternity it is commonly used.
“commonly used”? How low do they go? Shameful.
I think we can rely on the integrity of the court of appeal, Bella. Morrisson has no influence there. He is entitled to an appeal.
Richter has apologised – he is a brilliant QC. He was probably gobsmacked at the verdict and said something on the spur of the moment that he regrets. Everyone is human and has their moments.
The case was flimsy – I wouldn’t be surprised if the judgement was overturned. But Pell will be hounded relentlessly if he is freed. Not sure if prison isn’t the better option for him really. He would not mind the solitary life.
He might be a brilliant QC but that doesn’t mean he can’t lose. What he said after the verdict was the equivalent of a bogan dummy-spit & I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the judgement was overturned either.
A planned outcome all along really if the victims testimony of the sexual attacks, perpetrated by this lying ‘good character’ god-man, are once again not believed.
Bella, as far as I’m aware, George Pell will remain in custody until 13 March.
What I find puzzling is why Pell refused to give testimony in his defence.
Sometimes it is better, strategically, to chuck the first fight.
Voltaire explains it well TO in his comment today. No self respecting lawyer would let Pell near a witness box if he was defending him.
Mr Maxwell, Mr Insider, is truly the BIG SHOW
Is there any evidence to refute what Tess Livingstone say’s here? What there isn’t is proof beyond reasonable doubt which is the highest standard. I don’t give a flying fuck about George Pell, I think he’s a bit of a grub, but I do about a fair system of justice. This isn’t about left or right. Nobody should be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. Particularly when there is actually contradictory evidence. The appeal court will find this verdict unsound. If you disagree let me put this to you. Let’s get rid of the sacristy and make it a car on a Saturday night at the drive in. Your son is accused of doing the same thing to a young lady. The evidence is exactly the same. Her word against his. Are you happy for him to do 6yrs? Now add the door of the car is open and people are walking by. Also add he has a set of tight overalls on. Love or hate a Pell the verdict is unsound.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/george-pell-the-george-pell-saga-has-a-long-way-to-go-yet/news-story/28119a929c7218ed3c2e7cc740e64325
Razor, it may be inconceivable to you but, maybe, the jury’s unanimous verdict was based on evidence that wasn’t available to you, me, or even Tess Livingstone who, seemingly, had made up her mind about George Pell well ahead of the verdict.
Sorry TO. What evidence would that be? This isn’t the Soviet Union. No secret trials, the evidence is the evidence. Even the Pell haters agree. Back to you. Again this is not left against right. It distils down to a thing I have spent 35yrs observing; The standard of proof. It isn’t there. Look at the scenario I put forward. Would you be happy with that?
“What evidence would that be?”
That’s exactly my point, Razor:
“Pell’s “been falsely convicted”, says the Herald Sun’s Andrew Bolt. “That’s my opinion based on the overwhelming evidence.” Never mind he has no access to the “overwhelming evidence” because in sex offence cases in Victoria the alleged victim’s evidence is routinely kept secret. Journalists couldn’t even read in the transcript what the jury heard in court.”
See: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/why-did-howard-abbott-and-the-rest-come-out-to-support-george-pell-20190301-p5114b.html
As to your left-right argument, it sure seems to be the case that Pell’s staunchest defenders are coming from the right.
Razor, you should also read: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/dear-andrew-your-defence-of-george-pell-makes-a-mockery-of-survivors-20190304-p511k3.html
The following passage pretty much shoots down your assertion about all the evidence being available to everyone after the trial:
““I would, and did, read transcripts of the trial”. No Andrew, you may have read a partial transcript. The full transcript is not available to you or any of us. Only the survivor, the police, the lawyers, the judge, the jury and Pell have heard all the evidence. So please stop implying you know all the facts: you do not, and nor do I.”
Says it all, really, doesn’t it?
Dear Tess has plenty of form, of course. This is the same Tess who wrote in The Australian, even though the psychology was well understood by then, that if the claims of clerical sexual abuse of minors was true they could and should have been reported 20 years ago. She will be an apologist to the last.
Although I doubt that you intended it Razor, your post reads as if you would be every rapists dream defence lawyer.
indeed the verdict could be unsound…whats engaging my mind is a thought experiment wherein I am a jury member….he said she said won’t mean squat to me. .. its a position of corroborate or getaway.
now this jury delivers a definite verdict…presumably I agreed..how did the prosecution get me onside? what corroboration did they bring?
I’m watching with interest
Ita Buttrose at age 77yo appointed new Chairman of the ABC, Mr. Insider. Now don’t get me wrong I love the lady but 77yo with a 5 year tenure will make her 82yo if she goes the distance and surely a younger more Tech Savvy person with Media Experience would have been a better choice? P.S. she might introduce a 2 hour Afternoon “Siesta” for all Staff
Surely shouldn’t cut back on the siesta?
the greenhorn 78 yr old callow rookie QC apologises…didnt mean it…truly you cant make this shit up
https://twitter.com/em_younger/status/1101011089649676288
My comment went on the wrong blog JtI. But you know what I mean, ‘vanilla penetration’ is part of minimising a horrendous crime. Im so angry. You see there is no Satan. 🙁 If there was, he’d be my big red bossman, because Im up for the job of torturing pedo priest for eternity, I would do the best nasty stuff ever, Satan dude here is my resume!! You know I want this!!
.
Im not alone Jack. Betrayal, rape, and then the blame game. The Scientologists have just watched and learned from the professionals. I think even taking a child into a church should be seen as potential abuse. There are no women in power in churches for a reason, because we wont have it!! Its why we are kept down everywhere in religion. So boys can be boys and never dob each other in.
sickening
This column makes a good point. Now that Pell has been found guilty and is in jail, if the individuals and the rest that spent a lot of column inches, air time and energy actively pursuing Pell and the catholic church, it would be a positive if they directed their attentions to those seeking redress. And rather than just provide lip service, Morrison, in the time he has left, could do the same.
I can’t help feeling that “the establishment” has gone into bat for Pell over this.
Please tell me I’m being bloody stupid but some of the stuff I’ve read since had just been mind boggling, not only has the complainant been denigrated but the jury has, it wasn’t a quick decision for pete’s sake it took them three and a half days!
I presume the appeal is launched on the technicalities of the verdict and will evidence pertaining to Pell during the Royal Commission be released once the appeal is over?
I commented a good while back now, on a Ryan column, how I failed to comprehend the reasoning, or payoff or benefit, for police in protecting priests known to be sexually abusing minors, ie paedophiles. I still don’t get it; but similarly can understand the cops up here, and elsewhere, in qld making lots of coin from those who ran brothels, gambling dens etc. Who knows if they treated lay people who committed such crimes the same? It strikes as an odd and perverse ”racket” for the police to play interference for. Without doubt the RC Church, and its educational arms, here and abroad, has been proven to consider itself above and beyond the law, and act accordingly, in regard the sexual abuse of minors, and in other areas. Not sure if in other places there was similar collusion with the police.
Cops with a distorted loyalty to their religion rather than the people they are supposed to srvr.
we had two tribes of them in the Victoria Police, and I had thought that was in the past, but not so sure now.
I think one of the dangers is that after so much inaction and corruption, they may have gone the other way. I am not saying that is the case. I have had a little bit to do with the Sano TF. They seem professional and capable.
My professional observation of Detectives who investigate child sexual offences and only child sex offences for long periods of time is some lose objectivity. They should be rotated through regularly never to return again. One person who thinks he or she is a ‘white knight’ can destroy the good work and reputation of many.
That’s a view held by Overland across a number of special squads. It was a disaster when adopted with Homicide in Vic.
Maybe it has taken something of this magnitude, Mr. Insider to change things forever for Child Abuse Survivors. The ghastly Pell may well have inadvertently done some good through no intention of his own.
Must say I am shocked at the support he has got from two former PM’s in Howard and Abbott, FGS what were they thinking!
Sentencing to come and that will be very interesting however he will get a “soft” Jail to go to just like the grub Rolf Harris.
See, I think it will make matters worse for victims. A false dawn if you like while they wait for their compo in a bureaucratic system that is awfully slow if not just plain awful.
if that’s the case thats terrible, Mr. Insider as these good folk have suffered so much already. Cheers
two former PM’s are being true to their type
Also worthy of an honourable mention is that his supporters will lose all credit, with society and in one egregious case, his electorate…
Perhaps ABBOTT just made things far worse (if that’s even possible) for himself.
Resigning may be his only option if he wants to save all that incoming humiliation.