The High Court in Pell v The Queen : An ‘unreasonable’ review of the jury’s decision

Abstract

In the recent case of Pell v The Queen, the High Court quashed the jury’s verdict and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal (majority) in Victoria. This article analyses the High Court’s approach to determining the facts that were open to the jury and to determining whether the jury erred in finding Cardinal Pell guilty. The High Court’s decision raises important issues about the jury as Australia’s constitutional tribunal for deciding issues of fact, how appellate courts review a jury’s verdict, how juries and appellate courts make findings of fact, and the challenges of finding facts in historical sexual abuse cases.