The acquittal of Cardinal Pell

will be the subject of great scrutiny by generations of law students to come.
"Criminal Law" and "Evidence" were the two subjects I enjoyed least in Law School. I passed both subjects of course. They were compulsory. I would not have been granted my degree without passing them but that does not mean I liked them. I often felt there was nothing "fair" or "just" about the way decisions were made. 
It did not stop me taking an interest in yesterday's decision however because it was unusual. Many other people I know asked what I thought might happen prior to the decision being made. I knew what the legal profession, in an overall way, was thinking.
So, what happened?
I won't try and explain the ins and the outs of it because the law is complex and I can't pretend I fully understand it. I don't.
Several things could have happened.
The High Court could simply have refused to allow the appeal. That means that Pell would have remained in prison and he would have been convicted of the offences he was charged with.
The Court could have allowed the appeal but ruled that Pell should still have been convicted of the offences. He would have remained in prison.
The Court could have allowed the appeal but sent the case back to the state's courts to be tried again. That was always unlikely, particularly because the first trial had ended with the jury being unable to come to a verdict. By the time the second trial was over there was so much said in the media that getting a fair trial was even more unlikely. (It was never very likely in the first place as Pell had already been tried and found wanting by people who made no secret that they believed he was guilty.   The damage had been done by the ABC's Louise Milligan and others.)
Or the Court could find in favour of the applicant, i.e. Pell. The last was  the one the legal profession appeared to believe the most likely.  I was told, "It will probably be a majority decision Cat - possibly as high as five-two but more likely four-three." 
It was a unanimous decision of all seven judges. That in itself is extraordinary. Despite their very careful wording it suggests that all seven judges were concerned by the conduct of the case as well as the outcome. They suggested there was "a very real possibility" that an innocent man had been found guilty.
Others disagree. Pell was an unpopular figure, even within the church. He was (and is) very conservative. He is opposed to issues like "same sex marriage" and the ordination of women. There are people I have met who feel he should be left in prison simply because he opposes these things.
However if the police and the DPP had felt there was any chance at all they would have prosecuted Pell on other matters. They knew their case in the issue which they did try to prosecute was very weak. By now it is also recognised that the police went "trawling" (trying to find incidents that they could use) but the "evidence" provided was not going to be sufficient for the standard of proof required, i.e. "beyond reasonable doubt". It failed on this occasion too - but not before a man's reputation and career were in ruins.  
This is not enough for some however. There are now strenuous efforts being made to pursue matters through the civil courts where the standard of proof is much lower being only "on the balance of probabilities".  One member of the legal profession, obviously touting for business, said he believed the decision would "encourage" others to come forward.
The only person who truly knows what he has done is Pell himself.
There is no doubt he is a human being. He has made mistakes. We all do. Despite the efforts of some to claim he is still guilty he is, in the eyes of the law, an innocent man.
 If there is evidence of a crime being committed then it has to go through the proper processes. Those who want to pursue him on such serious matters should do so in the proper way, not simply out of vindictiveness.