He has been the subject of extensive media over many years, and his work has been publicised in a recent book.

Cardinal Pell is now charged in respect of what are commonly termed “historic sex abuse allegations.”

But, no matter what the media or any individual or organisation thinks of Cardinal Pell’s personal traits or the subject matter with which the charges deal, he is as entitled to the presumption of innocence in facing criminal proceedings in Victoria as any other person.

It is of fundamental importance — and the word fundamental is used advisedly — for those in the media and users of social media, irrespective of whether they are anti or pro Pell or that they have strong views about the issue of churches and sexual abuse, to respect the presumption of innocence.

It is sad that in our society what should be so obvious has to be repeated ad nauseam, but that it is the way it is today in Australia.

What is so disturbing is that some people and groups think that if they do not like a person or what they are alleged to have done then the presumption of innocence should not apply.

Just look at Twitter and Facebook any day of the week and you will be depressed by thousands of comments and sentiments along those lines.

Trial by media, traditional and social, or by any vehicle outside a court of law is anathema to a civilised society.

Yet it is sadly all too common. Facebook and other forms of social media do little or nothing to protect the rights of an accused person.

As Justice Stephen Estcourt of the Supreme Court of Tasmania put it in article published in the Australian Law Journal in May this year, “While many people are aware that it is potentially a contempt of court punishable by imprisonment to make prejudicial comments about matters that are currently before a court, it appears that many people do not understand that a matter is still before the court after a person has been sentenced and during the ensuing appeal period.”

The proprietors of Facebook and Twitter and the traditional media should understand that this is the law yet they allow publication of highly prejudicial commentary and allegations against accused persons every day.

While Facebook and Twitter are serial offenders when it comes to undermining fundamental legal rights, the traditional media is more subtle but nonetheless just as insidious a force when it comes to undermining accused persons.

Many individuals have over the years suffered at the hands of journalists who pursue agendas and a view of the “facts” that suits the journalist and his or her bosses.

And police have become adept at leaking or releasing information, often highly prejudicial, against suspects and defendants.

We saw that last week in Tasmania with the appalling spectacle of police and media naming a person who they said they wanted to speak to concerning a fatality in New Town.

“They named the person and media reported he was very dangerous. And this person has not even been interviewed, let alone charged with an offence.

Ariana Tanoos, from the University of Indiana law school, has recently summed up the traditional and social media’s role in eroding the fundamental human right of the presumption of innocence.

She notes that every day we read, watch and hear, “countless reports of local, regional and national crime stories”, which “dominate news programs, broadcasting mugshots ... while reporting details about the defendant, the defendant’s criminal history, and details of the offence”.

“Public suspicion and pre-trial deliberation about a defendant’s guilt have become commonplace,” Ms Tanoos writes in a recent edition of the Indiana Law Review.

She perceptively observes the sad reality that this “weakening of the presumption of innocence has allowed the press to take greater liberty in reporting on crime, reporting inaccuracies that the public accepts as confirmed facts”.

“Freedom of the press is continuously promoted and preserved at the expense of the presumption of innocence.”

The bottom line is this. In order to protect the fundamental rights of accused persons in Australia in this day and age, whether it be George Pell or a person charged with shoplifting a block of chocolate in a supermarket, the law should be reformed so that no comment is permitted on the details of the case other than the mere reporting of any court appearance and what is said by counsel, the bench and witnesses.

Any individual, be they a media company or an individual who breaches this law should face contempt proceedings. If this means courts having to deal with thousands of people who are in breach, then so be it.

Greg Barns is a barrister, author, political commentator and former political candidate based in Hobart. He is a prison law reform advocate and a regular Mercury columnist.