This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

It was perhaps a defining moment in the trial of Cardinal George Pell, when his utter defiance in the face of the serious claims against him was on full display.

A video of Pell’s hubristic stance as he was questioned on camera by two Australian detectives in Rome was played to the jurors.

At the time of the interview, Pell was the third most powerful man in the Vatican, responsible for managing the finances of the Catholic church, and a confidant to Pope Francis.

Five times guilty: how George Pell's child-abusing past caught up with him in courtroom 4.3 Read more

The detectives, from the police taskforce investigating historical child sexual abuse, recorded the interview, conducted in the conference room of a hotel on 19 October 2016. Pell did not take to the witness stand in his subsequent trial but the video was screened.

It showed that before the detectives had elaborated on the allegations against him, Pell read a prepared statement.

“I have to rely on the law and my conscience, which says that I am innocent, and I have to rely on the integrity of investigators not setting out to make a case but actually searching for the truth,” he told them.

He said he would give police a list of names of people to interview, who he said would speak “authoritatively” about his conduct in 1996 and 1997, when the offences occurred. At the time he was the archbishop of Melbourne.

“I would earnestly hope that this is done before any decision is made whether to lay charges, because immeasurable damage will be done to me and the church by the mere laying of charges which on proper examination will be later found to be untrue,” Pell said.

Dozens of journalists accused of breaking Pell suppression order face possible jail terms Read more

Less than nine months later, on 28 June 2017, detectives did charge him. On 11 December 2018 a jury before Melbourne’s county court convicted him on four counts of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 and one count of sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16.

Once Pell had read his statement, prepared with the assistance of his solicitors, Det Chris Reed attempted to begin his questioning. Reed told Pell a former choirboy had alleged that Pell had exposed his penis to him after mass.

“Oh, stop it,” Pell interjected. “What a load of absolute and disgraceful rubbish. Completely false. Madness.”

He then invited Reed to “go on … what happened after the mass?”

Facebook Twitter Pinterest George Pell testifies by videolink from Rome to Australia’s royal commission into child sexual abuse in Sydney in 2016. Photograph: HANDOUT/Reuters

Reed replied: “It’s alleged you stepped forward and grabbed [a boy] by his head and forced his head on to your penis.”

Again Pell interrupted: “Completely false.”

“You don’t have to comment at this stage,” Reed replied. “I can continue on.”

Pell: “Please do.”

Reed told him it was alleged that some time in the second half of 1996 while Pell was archbishop of Melbourne, he had come across two choirboys in the priest’s sacristy of St Patrick’s cathedral after Sunday solemn mass. It had been alleged Pell orally raped one of the boys, forcing his penis into his mouth, and that he had also performed indecent acts on them.

Pell, sucking on sweets throughout the interview, repeatedly interrupted Reed to confirm: “This is after mass?” and “This is in the sacristy at the cathedral after Sunday mass?” When Reed confirmed that was the allegation, Pell replied: “That’s good for me, because it makes it even more fantastic and impossible.

Who is George Pell and what has he been convicted of? Read more

“The most rudimentary interview of staff and those who were choirboys at the cathedral in that year and later would confirm the allegations are fundamentally improbable and most certainly false.”

At times, Pell scoffed as Reed outlined the allegations. “What a load of garbage and falsehood, and deranged falsehood,” he said.

At the end of the roughly 45-minute interview, Pell was asked if he had anything more to say in answer to possible charges that might be laid.

“That I’m certainly not guilty,” he said. “I believe on many, many details I’ve been able to prove that the charges are false and I believe with more work and information we’ll be able to further enhance the strength of those denials.”