I do not hold her allegiance to the Catholic Church nor do I find Pell a particularly likeable person. He represents an almost extreme version of his church's teaching, particularly with the subjugation of women, the treatment of people who have been divorced, and to homosexuals.
Nevertheless, Pell has been effectively accused of colluding with known paedophiles though he has for at least 13 years denied so doing. Allegations made this year to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse were given wide media coverage in 1993 when former priest Gerald Ridsdale was first charged with the sexual abuse of numerous children.
The principle of innocent until proved guilty has been generally dispensed with by Pell's critics, though he has not been charged with any offence.
Someone told me recently, "He is as guilty as hell." Guilty of what was not specified.
To say the least, it is a pity Pell was unable, or as some see it, unwilling, to keep his appointment with the royal commission in November.
Quite why it was unacceptable to the commission for him to appear through a video link is unclear. His failure to appear simply fuelled speculation that he was not really sick though there was no evidence to support this.
As things stand, we do not know what if any new evidence the commission has to put to Pell in February or how he will respond. Meanwhile, it is reasonable to believe that given the now proven widespread sexual abuse by priests and religious in the Ballarat diocese, it is easy to understand why many of his critics believe Pell would have, or should have, been aware of it. If he was, and if that can be proved, he deserves all the opprobrium to which he is now subjected.
There are numerous other examples of widespread public dismissal of the principle of innocent until proved guilty. While some scepticism of our legal and judicial system is justified, to replace it with a lynch mob is improper and dangerous.
In 2008 and 2009, I wrote in defence of the right of a convicted paedophile, Dennis Ferguson, to live without public harassment after his release from prison where he had served 14 years for his crime. In 2005, he fled twice within two weeks from his Queensland home when confronted by angry mobs. On the second occasion, the media and residents were tipped off on Ferguson's whereabouts by a National Party politician.
Australia's justice system is not perfect but if vigilante groups are condoned, or worse, encouraged by some politicians and sections of the media, serious damage or injury will inevitably result. In Ferguson's case, a petrol bomb was found outside his townhouse in 2009 and ultimately he took his life to escape public intimidation.
Some believe that was a suitable end. His crime was terrible, as were those of some of the priests known to the young Pell. But to replace the justice system with self-appointed vigilante groups, even if apparently morally justified, is to surrender a basic community structure.
Canberra knows all too well the result of the subversion of its justice system. In August 2014, David Eastman was released from prison after 19 years. His conviction for the murder of Colin Winchester was quashed after it was found Eastman did not receive a trial according to law.
Those who supported Eastman did not do so because he was a likeable person, or indeed because they necessarily believed he was innocent of the crime, but because they believed in the principle of a fair trial.
That is the position I support for Pell. He is easily dismissed as out of touch with today's world and even with changes in the Catholic Church being promoted by the Pope. There is even a strong link between Pell and Ridsdale – they shared a house in Ballarat as young priests. But unless and until there is proof of collusion or involvement by Pell, or his admission of such, he is entitled to that vital principle which in other circumstances many of his critics espouse – innocent until proved guilty.
