For months, journalists sat through one of the most high-profile trials held in any court in the world, without permission to report a moment of it — until now.

But you may have already heard snippets about what would have arguably been the biggest news story in Australia last year: Cardinal George Pell being found guilty of multiple child sex offences.

That's because some international news outlets have reported for months that Australia's most senior Catholic cleric was convicted in a Melbourne court.

But unlike ABC News, those news organisations didn't have a journalist in the courtroom.

So why has the verdict not been reported in Australia until now?

Sorry, this video has expired George Pell leaves court after suppression is lifted

'A perfect storm of potential prejudice'

After Pell was committed to stand trial on numerous child sex offences, it became clear he could face two trials involving separate sets of allegations.

The Washington Post was among international media outlets to report the verdict. ( ABC News )

The first case, dubbed 'the cathedral trial', related to when he was archbishop of Melbourne in the 1990s.

The second trial, referred to as 'the swimmers trial', would deal with allegations Pell had indecently assaulted two boys in a swimming pool when he was a priest in Ballarat in the 1970s.

A blanket suppression order banning reporting of Pell's first trial was made, under a generally accepted principle that it would have been impossible for Pell to have a fair trial if the second jury was aware of the details or outcome of an earlier trial.

Dozens of similar orders are made in Victorian courts every year without controversy.

The Victorian County Court's Chief Judge, Peter Kidd, described it as a "perfect storm of potential prejudice" against Pell that could damage his right to a fair trial.

And if the court couldn't ensure Pell would face a fair trial, it put the second case in jeopardy.

On Tuesday, however, it was determined the second trial would not proceed.

Despite what some major Australian news outlets reported in the days following Pell's guilty verdict, none of those outlets formally opposed the suppression order being made.

The court banned reporting Australia-wide

Judge Kidd ruled that without a suppression order, the second trial would have been "swamped" by publicity of the first trial.

He ruled that if a jury knew Pell had been found guilty of similar offending in an earlier trial, they might surmise he's more likely to be guilty of the second set of allegations.

"… [B]oth trials involve allegations of sexual abuse by the accused man against boys, accessed by him or known to him in his capacity as an authority and religious figure within the Catholic Church," Judge Kidd said.

"This is clearly not a case where the allegations in one trial are so separate and discrete in nature or circumstances as to be unlikely to improperly influence a jury in the other trial."

Both trials were also scheduled to run in quick succession, which wouldn't allow time for publicity to die down to reduce the potential prejudice against Pell.

Judge Kidd also banned reporting of the fact there would be two trials, which would suggest to potential jurors that Pell was facing other serious sexual offences.

Newspapers' 'egregious' potential breaches

The Director of Public Prosecutions has announced it's dropping the second set of charges against Cardinal Pell, which were due to go to trial in April.

That's triggered the court to lift the suppression order on Cardinal Pell's case because it no longer serves any purpose.

George Pell was committed to stand trial for two separate sets of allegations. ( ABC News: Danielle Bonica )

But this won't be the last that's reported about the suppression order.

In the days after Pell was found guilty, some major newspapers covered the verdict in cryptic articles.

They included Melbourne newspaper The Age, which reported "a very high-profile figure was convicted on Tuesday of a serious crime, but we are unable to report their identity due to a suppression order".

The coverage prompted Judge Kidd to call an urgent court hearing to discuss the coverage.

He said the coverage, at the very least, raised serious questions about whether the suppression order had been breached in the "most egregious way possible".

"... given how potentially egregious and flagrant these breaches are, a number of very important people in the media are facing, if found guilty, the prospect of … substantial imprisonment," he said.

The media weren't invited to the hearing, but the court later sent a transcript to journalists.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Kerri Judd QC, informed Judge Kidd she was also considering whether other contempt offences had been committed by the media which had potentially prejudiced the second trial.

Ms Judd said she would issue letters to the offending publications asking them to show cause as to why they shouldn't be charged with contempt. It's understood a number of outlets have now been put on notice.

Australian journalists were not allowed to report on George Pell's trial as it unfolded. ( ABC News: Danielle Bonica )

A day later, a number of media organisations, including ABC News, applied to have the suppression order lifted so the guilty verdict could be reported in Australia.

At that hearing, Judge Kidd was visibly furious and asked the barrister representing the media if he would be "rewarding bad behaviour" by lifting the suppression.

"For 72 hours your clients have chosen to attack the courts, attack the law, without ever having put a single legal argument to me," he said.

Judge Kidd ultimately refused the application, ruling that the circumstances in which he made the suppression order hadn't changed.

Now, for the first time since Pell was charged, his case can be reported in its entirety.

His legal counsel have lodged an appeal against his conviction of one count of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and four counts of committing an indecent act with, or in the presence of, a child.

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.