After two days of intense legal argument, the High Court of Australia has reserved its decision on whether it will overturn Cardinal George Pell's convictions for child sexual abuse.

Key points: The High Court could have delivered a judgment on Thursday but will now take some time to consider the merits of the prosecution and defence arguments

The High Court could have delivered a judgment on Thursday but will now take some time to consider the merits of the prosecution and defence arguments George Pell is appealing to the High Court to quash his 2018 conviction for sexually abusing two choirboys in the 1990s

George Pell is appealing to the High Court to quash his 2018 conviction for sexually abusing two choirboys in the 1990s His lawyers argue that Victorian appeal judges did not holistically assess evidence that Pell lacked the opportunity to molest the boys

Lawyers for Australia's most senior Catholic have taken their fight to have him released from jail to the High Court, after losing their appeal in the Victorian courts.

The 78-year-old former adviser to the Pope is currently serving a six-year jail term for abusing two choirboys at St Patrick's Cathedral in the mid-1990s.

The second day of the appeal hearing culminated in an intense debate over the short window of time Pell was said to have molested the choirboys, who according to the prosecutors, had snuck away from a choir procession to swig wine in an out-of-bounds sacristy.

It concluded with Pell's defence lawyer Bret Walker SC taking aim at the prosecution's timeline of events, which he called an "improvised and rickety construction … to make something fit, that will not fit".

At issue is the five to six-minute window of opportunity that the prosecutors said the abuse could occur in, taking into account the "hive of activity" after a Sunday solemn Mass.

"Was it put to any witnesses that it could be more than five to six minutes?" Chief Justice Susan Kiefel asked Victoria's Director of Public Prosecutions, Kerri Judd QC.

When Ms Judd did not answer yes or no, Ms Kiefel said: "It's a simple question Ms Judd."

Justice Geoffrey Nettle questioned if the wine could be drunk and the abuse carried out in such a short space of time.

"You can't be precise about the commencement of when the five to six minutes starts," Ms Judd replied.

On Thursday Mr Walker urged the High Court, if it were to find that there was an error, not to send the case back down to the Victorian Court of Appeal, which he said would be an "injustice".

"The best way for it to be over is by an order of this court entering an acquittal," Mr Walker said.

Ms Judd agreed the appeal could be decided by the High Court.

Loading

The day had begun with intense questioning.

During Wednesday's hearing, Mr Walker argued the Victorian appeal judges may have been unduly convinced by the videotaped evidence of the complainant.

Ms Judd was forced to answer why the video had formed part of the evidence, an unusual situation in an appeal.

"It wasn't the crown's idea and it wasn't the crown advancing the point about demeanour," Ms Judd said.

But she said the video furnished the judges with an impression of the victim's demeanour which was vital because "credibility issues were up front and centre".

Victim's demeanour a 'relevant consideration'

On the first day of the appeal, Pell's legal team argued there were inconsistencies in the victim's evidence, which they said were signs he was "embellishing and fantasising".

On Thursday, Ms Judd argued that the victim's demeanour was a "relevant consideration".

Pell has been sentenced to six years in jail for the sexual abuse of two choirboys in the 1990s. ( ABC News: Fay Plamka )

"Demeanour is not something that the Court of Appeal are prevented from looking at and considering," she said.

"The question then becomes not whether or not they looked at demeanour … but whether or not they were unduly influenced by demeanour."

The crown's contention is that the victim has long been truthful.

On the issue of undue influence, Justice Viriginia Bell drew Ms Judd to the crown's closing address in the cardinal's case, when the prosecutor invited the jury to recall the victim closing his eyes on two occasions to remember something.

"It may be that watching and seeing the complainant close his eyes and think back impressed members of the jury as an evidence sign of truthfulness," Justice Bell said.

But others, she noted, might see it as the victim fabricating his answer.

"My point is that it's such a subjective consideration that it's very difficult to see how the Appellate Court … can be assisted by its own subjective view of matters of that character," Justice Bell said.

Ms Judd said that ultimately, reliability and credibility of a witness was "primarily and essentially" a matter for the jury.

She said that though there was some evidence which could point to innocence, it did not mean the jury was unable to find Cardinal Pell guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Evidence moves to the priest's sacristy

Ms Judd told the High Court the evidence presented was enough for the original jury to convict Cardinal Pell beyond reasonable doubt.

She pointed to the victim's intimate knowledge of the priest's sacristy, where he says he was abused, as evidence which corroborated his story.

But Justice Geoffrey Nettle asked what evidence there was which placed the victim in the sacristy.

The Court of Appeal judges visited St Patrick's Cathedral as part of their preparations for the case. ( ABC News: Danielle Bonica )

"This witness gave positive evidence that he had not been in that room before," Ms Judd said.

She rejected the notion, put forward by the defence, that he could have once toured the room.

"He's in that room and he's describing it in such detail that if something's happened when he's in that room, it's indelibly marked on his memory," Ms Judd said.

"This is not just a quick look in this room. Something significant has happened in that room."

But under questioning, she conceded that the pivotal five or six minute window, during which time the abuse is said to have occurred, could have been longer.

A smaller contingent of supporters for George Pell were outside the High Court on Thursday. ( ABC News: Sarah Farnsworth )

Outside the court, a group of Pell supporters from Sydney who clashed with an abuse survivors' advocate on Wednesday gathered again on Thursday morning.

Abuse survivors' advocates outside the High Court held signs condemning George Pell. ( ABC News: Sarah Farnsworth )

The group — which was smaller than the day before — sang hymns while an abuse survivors' advocate used a loudspeaker to call for the justices to uphold the cardinal's conviction.

Are videos part of the official record?

On Wednesday, the High Court justices quizzed Mr Walker about whether the judge's viewing of the videos was within the correct process. Mr Walker said he was not sure that it helped.

"There has to be a justification [for doing it]," he told the court.

But Mr Walker was unable to answer on-the-spot questions about whether recording evidence from witnesses — a practice many courts have now adopted — had adjusted the notion of what is the official record, and whether a video is part of that.

Justice Virginia Bell also asked why the High Court had not been invited to watch the same material as the appeal court, and queried the material that the High Court had been given.

"Why are we being taken to selected portions of the transcript? And why aren't we getting the whole transcript?" she asked.

With the High Court now reserving a decision, a conclusion is likely to be months away.

Editor's note: On Tuesday April 7, 2020, the High Court in a unanimous decision upheld Cardinal Pell's appeal and quashed his convictions on all five charges.