Loading He denied the allegations, with the jury believing the testimony of one of the boys that he was molested in the crowded church. Pell was also convicted in relation to the second boy, although that alleged victim had previously denied ever being molested, did not make a complaint and was not interviewed by police or examined in court (he died in 2014). Which means Pell was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness, without forensic evidence, a pattern of behaviour or a confession. It is a matter of public record that it is rare to run a case on the word of one witness, let alone gain a conviction.

In recent years there has been a shift in the investigation and prosecution of sex crimes. For years victims have been denied justice because not enough resources were thrown at cases that were not black and white. Now police are told to come from a mindset of believing a person who says they have been sexually assaulted and more cases in the grey area are being presented to juries. In reality, sex crimes are being treated differently to other crimes, although the standard of proof remains the same. Loading Replay Replay video Play video Play video In the case of the high-profile Pell, there must have been pressure to deal with him differently. With the police's history of covering up for the church here was a chance to present a case, weak or strong, in the open before a jury. Court cases should not be run to clear the air and they are run not on what happened but what can be proven. It is all about admissible evidence. The accused does not have to prove their innocence to the jury but the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A juror is faced with three conclusions; (1) the offender did it; (2) the offender didn't do it; or (3) I don't know. Conclusions 2 or 3 result in an acquittal.

Pell has become a lightning rod in the worldwide storm of anger at a systemic cover-up of priestly abuses. But that doesn't make him a child molester. If Pell did molest those two teenagers in the busy cathedral, it certainly does not fit the usual pattern of paedophile priests. Those in power identify vulnerable potential victims, groom and then isolate them, committing offences in private then pressuring the abused into silence. Most of the successful historical prosecutions come when police find multiple individual victims who testify about similar facts. Take Mildura’s Monsignor John Day (whose crimes were wickedly covered up by the church and police). He would take a boy to Melbourne on the pretext of an excursion, then say they would be staying at his sister’s house and would have to share a bed. In the Pell case, although he had access to hundreds of boys over his career he did not groom the vulnerable. Instead he attacked two he did not know in broad daylight in a near public area.

He could not have known if one of them was not the son of the chief commissioner, the premier or the chief justice who were waiting outside to collect them. He could not have known if one of them would walk straight out and blow the whistle on him, and with two kids in the room he would have been sunk. This is not the action of a cunning paedophile but of a random, opportunistic criminal who usually turns out to be a serial offender. Yet no one has alleged Pell had a history of this type of crime. Again, we stress, this is not about what happened in St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996 but what has happened in the County Court during Pell’s prosecution.

Much has been made of the fact that Pell did not take the witness box to defend himself. His lawyer, Robert Richter, QC, who is about the best in the business, has only ever let two of his clients take the box. One was the colourful Mick Gatto, charged and acquitted of the murder of hitman Andrew ‘‘Benji’’ Veniamin. I asked Richter why he allowed Gatto to testify and he replied, ‘‘Because he insisted.’’ Wise move. It should also be recorded that when he was interviewed by police, Pell answered all questions and didn’t choose to invoke his right to silence. In all probability Richter thought the case was so weak and, as Pell can come over as cold and aloof, that his testimony could do more harm than good. Our courts are not supposed to be swayed by outside influences, which is why judges are appointed and not elected and juries are promised anonymity. They are duty-bound to provide just outcomes, no matter how unpopular. Back in 1991, a jury heard the evidence against four men accused of the 1988 ambush and murder of two police officers, constables Steven Tynan and Damian Eyre, who were ambushed in Walsh Street, South Yarra.

The men accused were career criminals and evil men. There was tremendous public pressure to convict but the case was weak and they were acquitted. It was a triumph for the legal system that no matter how foul the crime and detestable the accused, the case was decided without fear and favour and beyond reasonable doubt. Can we say the same now? If you or anyone you know needs support, you can contact the National Sexual Assault, Domestic and Family Violence Counselling Service on 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732), Lifeline 131 114, or beyondblue 1300 224 636.