Kiefel CJ
Bell J
Gageler J
Keane J
Nettle J
Gordon J
Edelman J
15.
inconsistencies and discrepancies, and a number of his answers "simply made no sense"[1]. While his Honour accepted that A appeared to have embellished his account at times, he did not find that, had A's evidence stood alone, his allegations in respect of the first incident were fabricated[2]. His Honour was not prepared to make the same assessment with respect to A's evidence of the second incident.
Weinberg JA did not assess A to be such a compelling, credible and reliable witness as to necessarily accept his account beyond reasonable doubt. The division in the Court of Appeal in the assessment of A's credibility may be thought to underscore the highly subjective nature of demeanour-based judgments[3].
A's evidence unsupported?
Despite the fact that the prosecution case was left to the jury as being wholly dependent upon A's evidence, the Court of Appeal majority questioned that A's evidence was uncorroborated. Their Honours suggested that, to an extent, A's evidence was supported by reference to knowledge which he could not have come by unless he was telling the truth. The reference was to A's knowledge of the interior layout of the priests' sacristy, which their Honours found considerably enhanced the credibility of his account. "More striking still", their Honours said, was the fact that A identified the priests' sacristy as the setting of the assaults given that, at all other times, the applicant would have used the archbishop's sacristy. Their Honours said that the jury was entitled to discount the possibility that a tour of the Cathedral, which A may have taken at the time he joined the choir, would explain his detailed knowledge and recollection of the interior of the priests' sacristy 20 years later. So much may be accepted. It does not, however, provide support in the sense of corroboration of A's account[4]. Satisfaction that A had been
- ↑ Pell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 186 at [455].
- ↑ Pell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 186 at [928]–[929].
- ↑ Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 129 [31] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ.
- ↑ Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 at 211 per Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ; BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275 at 283–284 per Brennan CJ; R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658 at 667–668.
