In rape cases the Jury is inevitably faced with making a choice between believing the victim or the accused. Corroborating evidence is scarce & usually circumstantial & the Jury has to make the same choice. Remember, Pell refused to take the stand. https://www.smh.com.au/national/high-court-corrects-an-injustice-but-raises-some-difficult-questions-20200407-p54hzl.html

This compounded the problem for the Jury. A vital part of the process was intentionally withheld. The Jury was left with Pell's corroborating witnesses, who the Jury found not credible. The High Court found they were credible. The Jury saw & heard these witnesses.

This is a vital part of assessing witness credibility. There is an abundance of literature on this. The High Court did not see or hear the witnesses, yet they deemed them credible. Clearly there is a profound difference of opinion on witness credibility.

The facts the HC's decision called on emanate from these witnesses. The HC was therefore wrong to substitute itself for the Jury. This is disturbing to say the least. Pell's refusal to take the stand & give the Jury a chance to assess his credibility is a failure in the system.

Our legal system requires for a person to be found guilty, a jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The act of an accused refusing to take the stand & be cross examined creates doubt, & denies the victim fairness.

In cases like this, where so much hangs on the credibility of witnesses the law should require the accused to testify. The law needs to be changed to provide for this.

The High Court broke new ground in its decision & made a hash if it. It is hard to see how a victim in cases such as this, will now be able to get redress through the Courts. Pell remains as guilty as charged in my book.