The cardinal had been convicted on counts related to two separate incidents when he was the archbishop of Melbourne, making him the first bishop to be found guilty in a criminal court for sexually abusing minors, according to BishopAccountability.org, which tracks cases of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy.

The six-year sentence, which fell far short of the 50-year maximum, was closely scrutinized, but held up on its initial appeal, which was based in part on Cardinal Pell’s contention that there was not sufficient evidence to support the convictions.

In its judgment on Tuesday, the High Court found that for all five charges, there were many improbabilities that had not been fully considered by the jury. There is “a significant possibility,” the judges wrote in summarizing the case, “that an innocent person has been convicted.”

The problems started, the decision suggested, with the single accuser. Because a second complainant had died before a trial began, the case was “wholly dependent upon the acceptance of the truthfulness and the reliability” of one man’s testimony, the judges wrote.

While the jury found him credible, along with a majority of judges in the Court of Appeal, the High Court sided with a dissenting appeals court judge. That judge said that the jury ought to have had a reasonable doubt about Cardinal Pell’s guilt based on testimony from other witnesses who argued that the events described by the accuser did not match the cardinal’s regular Sunday routine.

There were other allegations that were not part of the case. In February 2019, a second trial in which Cardinal Pell was accused of touching boys in a swimming pool in Ballarat was canceled because of legal setbacks.

Karen Monument, the sister of one of the men in that case, said her brother and the family were “devastated” that Cardinal Pell would now walk free.