When George Pell's lawyer, Robert Richter, described his crimes as "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case" the comments led to an instant and widespread backlash on social media.

Key points: Mr Richter's comments were made at a pre-sentence hearing before Pell's bail was revoked and he was sent to jail

Mr Richter's comments were made at a pre-sentence hearing before Pell's bail was revoked and he was sent to jail The comments sparked outrage for being an insult to abuse survivors

The comments sparked outrage for being an insult to abuse survivors Jeremy Gans said it was important to understand he was speaking to a judge, not a jury

Victorian County Court Judge Peter Kidd disagreed, calling it "a serious example of this kind of offending".

The comments were made at a plea hearing in Melbourne on Wednesday after Pell was convicted of sexually abusing two choirboys.

Mr Richter's comments were made to the judge in open court as part of the normal plea discussions in such cases, according to Professor Jeremy Gans from the Melbourne Law School.

"I think it has to be understood that Mr Richter is not talking to a jury, he is not talking to the media, he is talking to a judge," he said.

But that was cold comfort to abuse survivors and advocates like Chrissie Foster, the mother of two girls abused by a Catholic priest.

She was in court when Mr Richter made the comments and called them "outrageous".

"How can they say that? These are children, they were children, two of my children were treated to such rape," Ms Foster said, speaking outside court.

"To hear people speaking like that, defending someone who would do something like that, it's outrageous, insulting and that's what victims have to put up with."

Before Mr Richter had left the courtroom for the lunch break, the crowd outside had also found out about his comments — and were furious.

As he walked outside, Mr Richter was jostled by abuse survivors and advocates who shouted "dirty money".

Judge Kidd addressed the court after the incident, warning he would see it as a "really serious example of contempt" if anyone was caught assaulting Mr Richter.

Sorry, this video has expired George Pell arrives at Melbourne court for plea hearing

'Bog standard plea discussion'

Child protection advocacy group Bravehearts' founder, Hetty Johnston, was horrified and concerned about the impact the comments would have on child sexual abuse survivors.

"It just minimises what has happened to them. It says 'it's really nothing much, get over it,'" she said.

"People take that as a slap."

Ms Johnston said the comments reflected the lack of understanding about the impacts of child sexual abuse.

"It's a really telling thing to say," she said.

"To not be aware that that might be offensive is to really illustrate just how out of touch these people are."

Jeremy Gans said it was important to remember Mr Richter's remarks were not directed at the public or the media, but at a judge. ( ABC: Simon Leo Brown )

But Professor Gans, an expert on criminal appeals, said he was not at all surprised at the language used by Robert Richter.

He called it a "bog standard plea discussion".

"One of the terrible tasks that everyone has to do in sentencing is to rank the crime against every other possible crime that someone is charged with," he said.

"So if someone is charged with sexual penetration, you have to consider of all of the possible ways a child could be sexually penetrated and think — how does this rank in terms of seriousness.

"So that's what the vanilla comment is."

Professor Gans said he was not defending the comment, saying he could have chosen a better word.

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.