THE ISOLATION DIARIES – PART FOUR

THE SENTENCING OF GEORGE PELL / THE SILENCING OF SURVIVORS OF WHICH I AM

Content Warning/Trigger Warning: Sexual abuse, sexual assault, molestation, court hearings

It is difficult to begin, and I’m not sure if writing this will be of any appeasement. It certainly won’t rid me of the affliction, but that’s life.

The telling of [it] has been given constant fleeting moments of thought throughout the years. Uncovering innocence short lived, requisitioned by predatory but woefully common events, is no slight matter to recapitulate. Yet, they are blatantly cloaked right before us. In this sense, I am not alone. In no way is this recollection to strike blame, acquire pity, nor bring about aversion of any kind.

I’m sure I am not alone when I say that the High Court’s recent quashing of George Pell’s already convicted sex offence has ignited a great deal of questioning and suffering. For many, including myself, it will be almost impossible to comprehend how the unanimous jury verdicts of guilty, further supported by a Court of Appeal majority of two judges, can now be overturned. Furthermore, the High Court decision may undermine confidence in the legal system, especially in child sexual abuse prosecutions.

Let’s get one thing straight: it is important to note that the High Court appeal did not ask whether Pell committed the offences. It asked whether the two judges in the Victorian Court of Appeal, in dismissing Pell’s earlier appeal, made an error about the nature and application of correct legal principles.

VICTORIAN COURT OF APPEAL – In 2018, a jury unanimously found Pell guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” of five child sexual offences. Pell had to show more than the jury “might have” had a reasonable doubt. He had to show the evidence “precluded” a guilty verdict.

All three Court of Appeal judges thoroughly and independently considered all the evidence. Two judges thought it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the accused was guilty – and one did not. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal, and Pell turned to the High Court.

HIGH COURT APPEAL – The High Court allowed “special leave to appeal”. This is unusual, as special leave applications arguing an unreasonable verdict are frequently refused, including in child sexual offence cases.

However, Pell claimed the Court of Appeal caused a miscarriage of justice by misapplying the legal test. Therefore, the question for the High Court in whether to give special leave was not a question of Pell’s guilt, or whether the jury was wrong in their verdict. It was whether the case involved an issue engaging the interests of the administration of justice.

This does not itself indicate any view about Pell’s innocence

Ultimately, Pell argued they effectively required him to prove it was impossible for the offending to occur, reversing the onus and standard of proof. He argued the majority’s belief in the complainant was not enough to overcome evidence about lack of opportunity to commit the offences.

He also argued there was sufficient doubt about whether the offending was possible, as the complainant’s account required them to be alone in the sacristy for five to six minutes.

George Pell won in the High Court on a legal technicality.

This technicality heavily influenced by the inquisition of time.

Time – which has been taken from those who have suffered at the hands of their abusers, transformed into time spent in mourning – like some kind of cessation of ones self.

Time [where you’re] spent reliving the ordeal, recaptured by trauma – a reel of memories replaying, taking you back to a time where a child’s innocence was stolen.

A time where I, at four was taken again and again into a dark room. Silenced.

A time where I voiced these sinister acts, without knowing what I was really describing. Silenced.

A time where I, at 11 recounted those repressed, vile memories and questioned what in the hell was wrong with me. Detached and disassociating, transported to a place in my recollection I never wanted to be. Silenced.

A time where I wondered if there was a link between the abuse and self-detestation. Silenced.

A time where I, at 19 stood before my abuser at the Apollo Bay Uniting Church Hall with listening to the wails of apologies coming from his mother and father – like it was some sort of atonement – Silenced.

Each time I spoke, repudiated. Each time I rose to take a stand, denied. Self hatred, which inevitably lead to self destruction ensued.

As a victim and survivor of childhood sexual abuse, my heart cries out to not only those who have suffered at the serious human misconduct that is George Pell, but all who have suffered sexual trauma. I’m well aware that the repercussions of the case against George Pell may be very severe.

The man at the heart of the failed case against Cardinal George Pell, whom for privacy reasons is referred to as ‘Witness J’, has issued a rallying cry to sexual abuse survivors. He said:

“I would hate to think that the outcome of this case is that people are discouraged from reporting to police…”

A thought, which weighs heavy on my mind during this isolation time is whether to counteract silence with a voice, my voice. To hold a space for myself, my own plot, where roots grow deep and I flourish. To fertilise a new story, to cultivate love there.

Can it be rewritten? I’m sick of the repetition