The sentencing of Cardinal George Pell on 13 March 2019 to six years jail on charges of child sexual abuse raises many questions.
What is happening to the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt? In Australian jurisprudence, if a reasonable explanation of the evidence could indicate the defendant's innocence, a not guilty verdict is required.
How could a jury find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis of the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness, especially when multiple witnesses provided evidence that Cardinal Pell could not have committed the alleged offences?