Cardinal George Pell arrives at the County Court in Melbourne, Australia. Photo / AP
Cardinal George Pell arrives at the County Court in Melbourne, Australia. Photo / AP
George Pell's defence lawyer has tried to persuade a judge that the disgraced cardinal's sex attack on two children was at the lower end of offending because it "lasted less than six minutes".
At a pre-sentence hearing in Victorian County Court this morning, Pell's defence lawyer Robert Richter said Pellwas "not a repeat wrongdoer", in relation to his child sex convictions.
"It lasted less than six minutes," he said about the rape of one choirboy and molestation of another in Melbourne's St Patrick's Cathedral in 1996.
But Magistrate chief Judge Peter Kidd put Richter "on notice" that he did not consider the offending anywhere near the "low end".
"People make reasoned choices," he told the court.
"That's what he did and he did it for over five minutes. He exploited two vulnerable boys. There was an element of brutality to this assault. It was an attack."
Judge Kidd told the court that Pell "thought he was going to get away with" the rape of one child and sexual assault of another.
"In his mind (he) possessed impunity," the judge said.
Pell's lawyers are pushing for a retrial and his legal team has applied for leave to appeal his child sex convictions with the Court of Appeal.
Judge Kidd said he would aim to "deter others" in his sentencing and that Pell was "very unlikely to reoffend".
Prosecutors read through details of Pell's offending. Crown Prosecutor Mark Gibson said that what happened inside St Patrick's Cathedral in 1996 constituted a "breach of trust" and "serious offending".
"Given the age and status (of the victims), it puts them in a position of being vulnerable," Gibson said.
"These acts were in our submission humiliating and degrading towards each boy and gave rise to the stress in each boy.
"(There was) a degree of callous indifference by the cardinal."
Former prime minster John Howard is among those who submitted character references for cardinal George Pell after he was convicted. Pell’s lawyers tendered the references to court this morning. @newscomauHQ
Ten character references have been tendered in court for Pell, with one from Australian Catholic University Vice-Chancellor Greg Graven and another from former prime minister John Howard.
Pell's lawyer Robert Richter QC said the character references speak of his client's kindness and generosity "above and beyond that of a priest" and of "a man who has a great sense of humour" who relates "to everyone "from prime ministers to street cleaners".
Pell sat emotionless in the dock flanked by three uniformed officers as the court also heard there would be two victim impact statements tendered.
Judge Kidd told the court he would accept the statement from the father of one of the victims.
"A parent, when a child is the victim of a crime, then the impact, distress that would cause is self evident and almost inevitable," he said.
"My view would be that a parent could stand as a victim in those circumstances."
"You're the devil"
Pell this morning arrived for the pre-sentence hearing to chaotic scenes as an angry mob screamed abuse at him outside court.
As Pell stepped out of a car to enter court, he was met by an enraged crowd, and a large local and international media contingent. Melbourne journalist Nathan Templeton described the scene as "intense and quite frightening" after about a dozen members of the public jeered at the cardinal, calling him everything from a "maggot" to a "monster".
"You're the devil. You're evil … You're a paedophile. You're a criminal. May you rot in hell," one protester shouted.
Pell's guilty verdict was made public on Tuesday after months of secrecy surrounding the trial.
He was convicted in December of raping one choirboy in Melbourne's St Patrick's Cathedral and molesting another in 1996.
A jury returned guilty verdicts for four counts of committing an indecent act with a child under 16 and one count of sexual penetration with a child under 16.
Cardinal George Pell leaves the County Court in Melbourne. Photo / AP
Richter said the appeal application was made on three grounds, firstly that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and contrary to evidence.
He said he'd also argue there should be a retrial, on the grounds a graphic he wanted to use in the trial was rejected — and that there was a problem with the way the jury was constituted.
The Court of Appeal will hear the application for leave to appeal at a date to be confirmed.
If leave is granted, an appeal hearing may then proceed.
He had been newly appointed Archbishop of Melbourne when he committed the crimes.
Gibson said the two choristers were found drinking sacramental wine when the cardinal commenced the "brazen, forceful" sexual assault.
"Shortly after Pell came upon the offenders, he committed an indecent act upon (one of the victims).
"This involved placing the boy's face or head in proximity to his genital region. A short time after this, he sexually penetrated (the other boy). He then committed another indecent act … this involved touching the boy's genitalia. While this was occurring, Pell touched his own genitalia."
Gibson said a month after the first incident, one of the boys was approached again in a back corridor.
George Pell's lawyers will push for a retrial. Photo / AP
"Cardinal Pell pushed himself again (the boy) and squeezed his genitalia for a brief period."
The jurors returned a unanimous verdict in December as part of a retrial following a hung jury.
However, a suppression order prevented media reporting details of the trial until the gag was lifted on Tuesday morning.
Pell, who has been on bail throughout the proceedings, may be taken into custody today.
Now Australia's highest-ranking Catholic, the Vatican treasurer was granted extra time on bail over the festive season to have double knee replacement surgery in Sydney.
He had become increasingly frail and had difficulty walking unassisted throughout his trial.
On Tuesday, Richter accepted a prison sentence was inevitable but said he intended to appeal on three grounds, including that the jury verdict was unreasonable as it was contrary to the evidence.
