Once a jury found Pell guilty, his case was always going to end up in @highcourtofaus: https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/registry/court-lists/2020/7-04-20.pdf.

But I always expected a whimper (a one-line rejection of special leave),not a bang (a seven-judge judgment on multiple issues of fact and law.) Wrong as always.

Will I manage the broken clock thing just this once?

I always gave Pell long odds of winning at the HCA, but several things changed that.

First, the judges' letter about the Court of Appeal watching videos suggested that the judges thought the case raised broad legal issues.

Second, on the hearing's first day, Bell - the Court's criminal law expert - clearly played the Weinberg role, repeatedly suggesting that the Court of Appeal had stuffed up by focussing on J's credibility and whether his account was 'possible'.

Third, later that day, Pell's counsel, Bret Walker, devoted an hour to arguing that the majority in the Court of Appeal misunderstood how the evidence on timing of events around the sacristy worked. Crucially, the justices said nothing. Were they bored?

Fourth, the next day we learnt that the answer was: no! Every judge asked Kerri Judd incredibly detailed questions about the evidence, especially the various 'alibi' and 'timing' witnesses. They were really on top of the factual details, way more than me... and Judd.

(By the way, I DON'T think Judd did a bad job. The judges' questions were about what they. were interested in, but Judd couldn't have known that going in and could scarcely know every line of a VERY complex case, while simultaneously arguing the Crown case. But..)

Fifth, Kiefel CJ came solidly on board with Bell's take, criticising Judd's performance (unfairly) but also forcing Judd to give firm answers on whether particular facts created reasonable doubt. Astonishingly, Judd was initially equivocal in her answers.

(Walker, by the way, was truly amazing, although he also got less questions, and less tough questions. But he has this astonishing ability to INSTANTLY answer even the hardest, most dangerous questions with a clear yes or no. Questions I would still be pondering days later.)

Sixth, then Keane came on board. He had stayed silent on day one and I figured he was just furious at Walker's criticisms of the Court of Appeal. Boy was I wrong. he was furious at the Court of Appeal. So, that's the troika taking on the Weinberg role.

Seventh, that means that Pell needs just one more judge. By the middle of day two, there were two strong prospects: the Victorias, Nettle and Gordon. They both focused on the facts and seemed repeatedly unhappy with Judd's answers. Nettle, though, hedged on orders.

(There's an argument that the judges gave Judd a hard time to show that they gave Pell a fair chance. That's possible, I reckon. But I have two caveats: I've never seen High Court justices perform for the public like that. And that wasn't the 'vibe' of the room either.)

Eighth, Edelman was the sole judge on day one who had tough questions for Walker. I put him the DPP's camp because of that, but wondered why. he was silent on the timing issue. On day two, he was loud on the timing issue and hostile to Judd.

Ninth, Gageler played the Ferguson CJ role - quiet for the most part, and with questions that weren't hostile to anyone. I don't think he's with Bell on the flaws on the Court of Appeal judgment. But, like the others, he knew every fact and picked up Judd when she made errors.