However, experts agree that this would be highly unlikely, because of the extraordinarily high bar he’d have to meet in order to succeed.

“It would require him to prove that authorities knew there was nothing to this case, yet they went ahead anyway,” says Melbourne University Law School Professor Jeremy Gans.

“Tactically, it would also be a very foolish thing to do as it would reopen all sorts of questions...In other words: he won’t go there.”

On the flip side, Tuesday’s ruling won’t prevent any other complainants from suing Cardinal Pell or the Catholic Church in the civil court, where standard is based on the balance of probabilities, rather than “beyond reasonable doubt”.

“The burden of proof is very different in a civil court,” said Arnold Thomas Becker managing partner Lee Flanagan.

As news of Pell’s acquittal reverberated around the world on Tuesday, social media was awash with opinions - some more slanderous than others.

But this also raises an issue for the media and the public more broadly. Are people at risk of defamation if they continue to assert Pell’s guilt against the two choir-boys?

The short answer is yes - so exercise caution.

“Until today, Cardinal Pell was a convicted child sex offender, and anyone who said so wouldn’t be held liable,” says barrister and former Victorian Bar president Matt Collins QC.

“But anyone who says it after today would be exposed.”