| The high-profile barrister Bret Walker SC has argued jurors who convicted Cardinal George Pell of child sexual abuse were wrong to reject arguments from his defence about the improbability of the offending occurring, saying jurors should have held reasonable doubt about whether Pell abused two choir boys even if they believed his victim.
On Wednesday Pell's final chance of appealing his verdict began before the full high court bench of seven justices in Canberra. The court is yet to grant Pell leave to appeal his conviction – first, it heard arguments from Walker as to why the appeal should be allowed. It may grant or deny the appeal at any time, with Thursday also set aside for the case.
Outside the court, Pell supporters who arrived together on a bus gathered holding crosses and a sign that read We are praying for you Papa”. A victim advocate held up a sign that read Go to hell Pell”.
Walker's central argument was Pell did not have the time or opportunity to offend. While he accepted jurors found the complainant believable and compelling, he argued this was beside the point.
The true question is not Do I believe the complainant but whether, having believed the complainant, is there any reasonable doubt as to [Pell's] guilt?,” he said.
Walker told the bench, led by the chief justice, Susan Kiefel, that the jury's perception of the complainant's credibility should not have alone persuaded them of Pell's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Guardian | 
