George Pell’s trials on child sexual assault charges have received unprecedented public attention. Melissa Davey, one of the few reporters who sat through the entire process, answers some of the most common questions raised since his conviction

Why didn’t Pell take the witness stand?

Pell may have been willing to go into the witness box. But it is unusual for the defendant to do so in sexual abuse cases in Australia. While we can never know what jurors were thinking, there may have been some who wondered why a high-profile and intelligent person did not take the stand.

In the hundreds of cases Pell’s defence barrister Robert Richter has led, he has called the defendant to the stand only a handful of times. Things are slowly changing, but it is still rare for this to occur in abuse cases.

Pell has been criticised for his demeanour when speaking about abuse, including when he gave evidence before Australia’s child sexual abuse royal commission. This may have been a factor in Richter’s decision.

Inside the Pell trial: we sat in court for months, forbidden from reporting a word Read more

Why did Richter appear to accept Pell’s guilt at the sentencing hearing?

Many people are understandably confused by Richter’s comments to the chief judge, Peter Kidd, that Pell should receive a lower sentence because he did not have a pattern of offending, had not planned the attack and might have been “seized by some irresistible impulse” when he did it. This may seem an admission of guilt, but Richter is required to argue for a sentence based on the jury verdict, not based on Pell’s not guilty plea and maintenance of innocence. The case has been decided, so arguing Pell is innocent is useless in convincing the judge his client should get the lowest sentence possible. Richter had to accept the verdict in making his arguments.

How important are character references?

There are definitely lawyers who believe character references have no impact on sentencing. But it’s common to try all measures to reduce jail time. Character references may help indicate the likelihood of rehabilitation, repeat offending or the ability to follow court treatment orders. The high profile nature of some of Pell’s character references is unlikely to influence an experienced chief judge such as Peter Kidd, who has a background in prosecuting war crimes.

Does the first trial, in which the jury could not reach a verdict, have any bearing on the outcome of the second?

None at all. It’s irrelevant. Jurors in the retrial were not told about the mistrial.

David Marr on the extraordinary rise of George Pell – The Reckoning podcast Read more

It has been rumoured that the jurors in the mistrial were split 10-to-two in favour of Pell. Is this right?

This is an unverified rumour with no credible source. There have been plenty of other rumours about the split in the mistrial, including that it was more even. The weight of the split makes no difference. The law requires a unanimous or 11-to-one verdict, and anything else results in a mistrial. The chief judge is not told of the split and he made it clear he did not want to know. Any juror who reveals the split breaks the law.

The mistrial split is also irrelevant in the appeal court. In the retrial, both parties may learn from their mistakes, change their approach and refine their arguments. It would be unfair to then judge the verdict in a retrial against the verdict in the mistrial. In Pell’s retrial, witnesses were dropped by mutual agreement of both parties, and Richter added a power point presentation to his defence. One new witness was added. It was similar, but not the same, as the first.

Play Video 1:45 'A deranged falsehood': video of 2016 police interview shows Pell's response – video

What does ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ mean?

Unlike the US, Australia does not have a definition. Australia takes the approach that to define the terms is to diminish them. In Victoria, jurors can ask the judge for some guidance as to how to interpret “beyond reasonable doubt” if they are stuck, but this question was not asked by jurors in Pell’s case. However, jurors are given very strong directions by the chief judge about factors to consider.

Jurors were told it was not enough to believe the complainant, or to think that Pell committed the abuse. Jurors were told they had to believe the abusing happened beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise it was not safe to convict and they must find Pell not guilty. They were also told repeatedly and on multiple days they were not to make Pell a scapegoat for the Catholic church and its failures to children. They were warned almost daily against doing their own research into Pell or talking about the case, and were told they could go to jail if they did so. These were not points made in passing. They were drilled into jurors by the chief judge.

Is there a chance the conviction could get overturned on appeal and how does the process work?

There is a good chance the appeal will succeed, experts have said, but it is much more likely on one of the three grounds cited by Pell’s lawyers than the other two. The prominent Sydney barrister Bret Walker, not Richter, will lead the appeal.

Inside George Pell’s trial: ‘The room was deathly silent’ – The Reckoning podcast Read more

Was Pell convicted on the evidence of one person, and is this fair?

There were 14 witnesses called by prosecutors, all of them men. But there was only one firsthand witness who gave evidence – the complainant. A large part of the prosecution’s case necessarily hinged on his testimony. This is not at all unusual in sexual abuse trials which are known as “word on word” cases.

It used to be that the law could not give weight to a single complainant’s evidence unless there was also a witnesses who said the victim told them about the abuse at the time, or unless there was evidence showing the victim was distressed immediately after the attack. This may be why Richter made so much of the fact that the victim did not speak out until he was an adult.

But courts have been frustrated by the lack of successful prosecutions against sex offenders and the unfairness to victims, so evidence requirements have changed. There is overwhelming evidence that shows many victims do not speak about their abuse until decades later. The vast majority of sexual assault cases now come down to the complainant’s word. To ensure trials are still fair, legislation now requires the judge to give jurors specific directions to balance any unfairness against the defence or complainant when it comes to word on word cases.

Jurors are commonly told they must consider that the defendant may be deprived of an alibi (if the complainant cannot specify the time of the alleged offence) and is at significant forensic disadvantage due to the passage of time. They are told it is up to prosecutors to prove guilt, not up to the defence to prove innocence. They are told it is not uncommon for child abuse victims to forget exact dates and peripheral details, or to report only as an adult. The jurors in the Pell case were given clear, repeated directions along these lines.

Simply not naming the complainant is not considered enough to spare them trauma from media reporting of their entire testimony

Was it an open trial?

Yes, mostly. No one was banned from watching proceedings, and members of the public did attend. In Victoria there is a high level of protection offered to complainants in sexual abuse cases, based on evidence about the impact of testifying in court, and to encourage victims to come forward. So the court was closed to everyone except the judge, lawyers and jury during the complainant’s roughly four days of testimony. This was given via video link in the first trial, and a recording of this was played in the retrial, with some minor edits that were agreed to by prosecution and defence.

The transcript of a closed court proceeding is not given to the media in Victoria even after a suppression order lifts, because this would undermine the effect of a closed court. Simply not naming the complainant is not considered enough to spare them trauma and embarrassment from saturation media reporting of their testimony.

However, direct quotes from the complainant’s evidence were read out by lawyers to the jurors when the court was open. In the opening and closing addresses we heard the key details of the offending from prosecutors and the key arguments against it from defence. It is rare that the media ever report a complainant’s evidence in full.

Jurors were also given a tour of St Patrick’s cathedral, which media did not attend.

People keep bringing up the defence’s argument that it would have been difficult for Pell to manoeuvre his robes to expose his penis. Do they have a point?

The robes Pell wore during the offending were brought into the court and tendered as an exhibit. The inner sheath and cream and purple outer layer were held up, and jurors were able to examine and hold these robes in their jury room during deliberations.

Monsignor Charles Portelli, who was Pell’s master of ceremonies at the time of the offending, demonstrated to jurors how the cincture was tied around the waist. Prosecutors pointed out that having a cincture around the waist did not restrict movement from the waist down. The defence gave evidence that the robes would be too heavy to lift and that Pell would not have been able to move the robes aside to expose his penis because they did not have slits.

The jurors saw the robes, were able to hold them, and heard the evidence from both parties as to their manoeuvrability.

Play Video 3:33 George Pell: David Marr on the cardinal's rise and fall – video explainer

What happens now about the ‘swimming pool’ allegations that were due to be tested in the second trial, now abandoned?

The trial was supposed to take place in April on charges that Pell sexually assaulted boys at a Ballarat swimming pool in the late 1970s. First, a key complainant died. Then, the court deemed key evidence was inadmissible. If prosecutors had gone ahead with the trial and lost, they could never prosecute those charges again. If more pool allegations were made in future prosecutors could try again with a potentially stronger case. Guardian Australia is not suggesting any such allegations have been made or will be made.

Is the verdict unreliable until after the appeal?

No. The verdict is not considered a “maybe” until the success or failure of an appeal. Pell is currently guilty on all charges.

What about the jurors themselves?

After the mistrial and retrial jurors were exempt from jury duty for a decade. They are also offered support from the court. It is important to remember the impact of the extensive reporting on the jurors, who are the only judges in the case and who are the only people who saw the evidence in full.

Did journalists who watched the whole trial believe Pell was guilty?

It is impossible and irresponsible for journalists who reported the trial to answer this, since they did not see the key evidence – of the complainant. They were also not bound by the directions given to the jury, such as not to do research on Pell away from the court, and this could influence their thinking.