On October 23rd, 2019, George Pell, writing in his cell in “Melbourne Assessment Prison”, quoted from these two experts, who opposed his conviction in Daniel Andrews’ Victoria for something the Cardinal could not have done:
A. First of all, Queensland Barrister & Retired Defence Counsel Anthony Smith, a former member of the Liberal Party:
“……. the administration of justice is now in absolute disrepute in respect of this case. The precedent is too terrible to contemplate. Who will be next in line? No one is immune for suffering under this kangaroo process.”
B. Pell also quotes American Catholic political analyst and social activist, George Weigel as writing an article dealing with the case entitled, “A Blight On The Whole Criminal Justice System”.
In an article titled “Falsely, Matilda” Weigel wrote (see here for full article) in quoting the dissenting opinion of Justice Weinberg of the Court which convicted the Cardinal:
“Judge Weinberg is recognized by knowledgeable students of the Australian justice system as the premier criminal-law jurist in the country. His brilliant, two-hundred page dissent (to Pell’sconviction) should be read in full, but here are several crucial citations:
On the complete lack of corroboration of the complainant’s charges: In Pell’s criminal trials, the “prosecution relied entirely upon the evidence of the complainant to establish guilt, and nothing more. There was no supporting evidence of any kind at all. These convictions were based upon the jury’s assessment of the complainant as a witness, and nothing more.” That same tactic, Judge Weinberg noted, was adopted by the prosecution at the appeal hearing in June.
On the utter implausibility of the complainant’s description of the alleged abuse: “… the complainant’s account …. seems to me to take brazenness to new heights, the like of which I have never seen … I would have thought that any prosecutor would be wary of bringing a charge of his gravity against anyone, based upon the implausible notion that a sexual assault of this kind would take place in public, and in the presence of numerous potential witnesses. Had the incident occurred in the way that the complainant alleged, it seems to me highly unlikely that none of those many persons present would have seen what was happening, or reported it in some way.”
Therefore: “To my mind, there is a ‘significant possibility’ that the applicant in this case [Cardinal Pell] may not have committed these offenses.” Which was, on my reading of it, Judge Weinberg’s way of saying that the convicting jury erred grievously in meeting the established legal standard of guilt being proved beyond a reasonable doubt …….”
“How is it, then, that (two judges, Chief Justice Ferguson and Judge Maxwell) can look at the same sequence of events as Judge Weinberg – then-Archbishop Pell bolts from a procession at the end of High Mass in the Melbourne cathedral, escapes the notice of the other clergy in the procession, culls out two choir boys, sexually abuses them in six or eight minutes while fully vested, and then returns to the front of the cathedral to greet worshippers, all of which escapes the notice of anyone else and about which nothing is said for two decades – and come to such a radically different conclusion than that reached by Australia’s pre-eminent authority in criminal jurisprudence?” “
I live a life of suffering in this legal environment where no one is safe from false allegations and left wing hysteria supported by the courts and police.
The injustice against Cardinal George Pell took place in Victoria and has not been properly addressed in this state because Socialist Left stupidity and its centralised planning have made themselves the enemy of freedom, justice and decency in Victoria.
I call upon all decent candidates in the upcoming election to both recognise the evil done to Pell under Labor government and also to commit to working for a restoration of justice in Victoria.
Geoff Fox, October 23, 2026, Melbourne, Victoria
