Conviction of Sexual Offences Against Children and Suppression Order in Victorian County Court

The court suppression order has been lifted following the withdraw of the second case by the public prosecutor. In future, please note that reliable coverage of a conviction many be permitted by Wikipedia policy but ((Sub judice)) should be added to the talk page and editors who may at any time be subject to Australian jurisdiction are strong advised to abstain from the matter. If any Australian editors have at any time publicly commented on the case, or the mere existence of the suppression order, they need to seek legal advice now. That Wikipedia causes content to be accessible in countries where it is illegal is a matter for WMF Legal. If there is a desire to change Wikipedia policy regarding treatment of court suppressions, please start an RfC. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was some changes to the page that were reverted by another user. However there is talk about a geo-block on news of the conviction, in which case this news should be on the page. Can someone from outside of Australia confirm the article and correct the record (if it is true that he was convicted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playlet (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly has not been convicted, at least not at this stage. The legal process still has a way to run before there's any outcome one way or another. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems he has been convicted but not sentenced. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I love it when people confidently assert stuff when they don't know what they're talking about. Portwalrus (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, when I made that statement, all we had was one (1) source. Hardly overwhelming. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not knowing whether or not he's been convicted, and therefore not including it in the article, is one thing. Asserting that he had not been while, frankly, not knowing what you're talking about is another. I don't want to make this personal, but I just don't think people should do that. Portwalrus (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He obviously has a horse in the race here. There was no virtually coverage on the Pell matter since news of potential gag order was made public. Out of the blue on the 12th half a dozen articles were released in the Australian press alluding to the matter and dozens more internationally directly mentioning it. Admittedly the standard and volume of evidence may have necessitated a little hesitation when approaching an edit to the article, but in no universe does it ever signal a flat denial in the style that we have just seen. Manifest Truth (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to wear that. But I flatly deny your assertion "He obviously has a horse in the race here". That is an egregious and offensive untruth. In no universe is it ok to attribute motives to others. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 16:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conviction reported by Daily Beast: https://www.thedailybeast.com/vatican-no-3-cardinal-george-pell-on-trial-for-historical-child-sex-charges?ref=scroll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:E09:1D00:81D0:1FBD:77A4:51A5 (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A young "nerd" in my house assures me it's true, but that it's hidden from (most) Australians because of a big suppression order (unless one uses a VPN or similar). Investigation and editing by non-Australians is needed here.
Are you serious? How about some, whaddaya call them, actual reliable sources? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, then I agree and Australians should refrain from editing the page one way or another and leave it to those not covered by the suppression order Playlet (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost certain that he's being charged but still hasn't been sentenced. However more to the point there is a suppression order granted by the Victorian Courts preventing any publication by Australian sources on the matter. This so that the jurors for upcoming trials will be untainted by knowledge of the case which would prevent their impartiality. So the question is can or should it be published on Wikipedia with this in mind? Manifest Truth (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable Australian source explaining why it can't report the news. https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/why-the-media-is-unable-to-report-on-a-case-that-has-generated-huge-interest-online-20181212-p50lta.html Fstix (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some source on the matter: https://www.concisenews.global/2018/12/12/cardinal-pell-convicted-of-child-sexual-abuse/ https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/12/12/pope-cuts-3-cardinals-from-cabinet-2-implicated-in-scandal/ https://outline.com/NL3tpY and specifically talking about the gag order: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/world/australia/george-pell-trial-super-injunction.html Manifest Truth (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican has confirmed it and even removed him from the Council of Cardinals. However it has also been confirmed that the conviction report currently has a gag order as well due to a ruling by a Victorian Court.[1] Not at all a "rumour."68.47.64.121 (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is now pretty strong that he has been convicted, sentencing will occur in February. There are now numerous sources stating he has been convicted at a second trial after the first ended with a hung jury. There is a supression order in place preventing publication of any details in order to not prejudice a second trial due in early 2019 over separate allegations. Fstix has given a citation from the mainstream Australian media covering why the story can not be reported in Australian media, and the fact of conviction, sentencing date, and upcoming second trial. The reports are now also in the mainstrean Catholic media https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/cardinal-pell-found-guilty-sex-abuse-expected-appeal-reports-say Both of these two sources meet the criteira for Reliable Sources Jaxsonjo (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know wikipedia is not normally censored, but in view of the exceptional circumstances here should we consider deleting this until the 2nd case is heard? PatGallacher (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Victoria's anachronistic media gags are ineffective in the digital age. WWGB (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A suppression order protects not only the defendant but it helps his possible victims get a fair case. We should remove all details into the suppression order is lifted. Olivertownshend (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the formal goal, but it ain't working. Have a look at the front page of the Herald Sun, a Murdoch paper, and the biggest selling paper in the state where the gag applies - https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/censored-a-story-we-cant-report/news-story/5346a51c7c31c8ed5b43985d28196a79. That is guaranteed to make people look for the news elsewhere, and many are. It is common discussion among people everywhere I've been today. It will be interesting to see what impact all this has on the policy of using suppression orders. 203.214.42.58 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's now being reported in full in the Washington Post. About as reputable and mainstream as you can get. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/australian-court-convicts-once-powerful-vatican-official-on-sex-abuse-related-charges/2018/12/12/da0d909c-fe20-11e8-a17e-162b712e8fc2_story.html?utm_term=.6f89a174b216 WaPo has also run the story on their Twitter feed. These are no longer rumours, he has been found guilty of child sexual offences. The sole remaining issue is the presence of the suppression order in Victoria, which covers all of Australia. Both the Murdoch and Fairfax media (the two major print media publishers in Australia) are running articles pointing out the presence of this major story they can't publish and former Prime Minister Paul Keating has mentioned the case on his Facebook page. The comments there (despite him saying don't mention any names) make it abundantly clear who is referred to. The horse has well and truly bolted. There should be no bar to these details being on this page. Jaxsonjo (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WAPO doesn't like us European readers and our pesky GDPR rights - http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/australian-court-convicts-once-powerful-vatican-official-on-sex-abuse-related-charges/2018/12/12/da0d909c-fe20-11e8-a17e-162b712e8fc2_story.html is a functional workaround. Cabayi (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the order from the court refers to Australian media and in no way effects coverage of the issues in a wikipedia article. This is due to the multiple high quality news articles about the issue. Also, the court's order has no jurisdiction over wikipedia. If there's a fear of stating a fact that might impact the fairness of a future case one needs to understand the threshold is extremely high for what constitutes news that would constitute a "Permanent stay of proceedings" see 2010 High Court case of Dupas v The Queen. Of course it is up to Australian media to not publish information or refer people to this wiki page or encourage people to google for news. The suppression order can cover twitter/facebook but only if the individual is covered by the order ie based in Australia, this is because they act like media empires with a one-to-many broadcast from users with large audience...IT would set a very troubling precedent if articles were censored because of orders like this one and be misguided and based on a misinformed and sensationalist view of the law. Skinnytony1 (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Australian Financial Review, (see link here), "the suppression order ... applies in 'all Australian states and territories' and 'on any website or other electronic or broadcast format accessible within Australia'." Wikipedia is, and is well known to be, accessible within Australia. Assuming that the AFR report is correct, it must follow that as far as the Victorian court is concerned, any editor anywhere in the world who publishes on Wikipedia any information inconsistent with the order could be held to be in breach of it. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the DPP "suggested extraditions of media to Australia".[2] Talk about a scare campaign. WAPO must be shaking in its boots! WWGB (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the suppression order and the Australian+global response to it worthy of an article in its own right yet? It certainly would be notable if Victoria/Australia attempted (rather than threatened) extradition to Australia for people who breached it overseas. --Scott Davis Talk 05:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a page on vic suppression orders? Could fit in that. I think the comment by the DPP is probably a rhetorical flourish more than anything. Skinnytony1 (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity (I think the gags are stupid in fundamental principle but particularly stupid in the notion that a Victorian court can dictate beyond its obvious jurisdiction) does Wikipedia itself have an official policy on suppression orders etc? This is obviously a semi-niche case but I know the UK has really strict media gag laws as well and I imagine this has surely come up before. Dr-ziego (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also I would like it if foreign editors could include more stuff about the suppression order, the reactionary front pages of the Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph etc. Some gut feeling suggests I probably shouldn't add it myself... Dr-ziego (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#Australia but perhaps there could be a page of its own Australian suppression order laws considering the complex discussions that have already occurred from previous cases and the current one that can be explored more fully with the passage of time...

Skinnytony1 (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia is based in the United States

Wikipedia and its servers are located in the United States of America; censorship laws in Australia are utterly irrelevant. Details of Cardinal Pell's conviction that are published in reliable sources, as well as details of the gag order, should be recorded in the article as a matter of routine. –Zfish118⋉talk 19:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: The gag order itself is the subject of much controversy and notable coverage, and does not qualify as "WP:UNDO". Please discuss before removing from the lead again so that your concerns can be better addressed. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine to cover in the body - but is it really important or relevant enough to George Pell's life that it should be included in the lead? Think about how relevant something would be 5 or 10 years from now. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it will be extremely important to remember that an Australian judge attempted to block news of the conviction of a high-level international official, especially decades from now. I find the secrecy surrounding the trial to be a critical element of the case document. I really do not understand why you would consider this neither neutral nor "important". Further, the gag-order is directly relevant to the quality of information available today. Details may change significantly if the gag order were lifted. –Zfish118⋉talk 19:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussion" here consists of the continual assertion that Wikipedia can disregard Australian law. That is fine for overseas users but leaves Wikipedia in Australia exposed to legal action here, which may include any Australian editor that touches this page. Olivertownshend (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing "legal action here, which may include any Australian editor that touches this page" is simplistic and overly dramatic. Most of the content of this article is not covered by the Australian legal gag, including Pell's removal from the Council of Cardinal Advisers. The delicate balance between facts and the gag are not helped by scare mongering. WWGB (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is an Australian citizen's duty to observe and/or petition to change Australian law. As an American, writing on an American platform, I am wholly unconcerned about Australian law.[note 1] Should Wikipedia observe censorship laws in China? Russia? North Korea? There is no material difference between the legal duty of an American to observe any such censorship laws. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

He has been sacked by the catholic church a treasurer (last entry on his page) 115.70.233.6 (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of "Catholic orthodoxy" and its contradiction with climate denial

Is the sentence in the lede correct "Since becoming Archbishop of Melbourne in 1996, he has maintained a high public profile on a wide range of issues, while retaining a strict adherence to Catholic orthodoxy." considering he is an outspoken and proud climate change denier. He has opposed the Encyclical Laudato Si from Pope Francis, hardly adherence to Catholic orthodoxy.

It is hardly surprising that the serious and somewhat blunt message of Laudato si’ has been met with resistance by many conservative Catholics, including those who advocate climate denial, such as Australian Cardinal George Pell.4 Pell’s idea that Pope Francis has no business meddling in either scientific or political matters crept into the conservative press. Such criticisms are false in light of the historical contribution of the Catholic Church to both scientific research and politics more broadly. In contrast with climate change deniers, Pope Francis...[1]

References

  1. ^ Deane-Drummond, Celia. "Pope Francis: Priest and Prophet in the Anthropocene". Environmental Humanities. doi:https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3664369. ((cite journal)): Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)

Also https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/catholicism-environment

Skinnytony1 (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please state what the specific charges are that Pell was found guilty of?

Could someone please state what the specific charges are that Pell was found guilty of? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:30B0:F075:BE56:77F4 (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was convicted of molesting two choir boys at the cathedral where Pell was bishop in the first trial (the so-called "Cathedral Trial"). A second trial is scheduled, known as the "Swimmers Trial", involves an accusation he molested two boys who were at a pool in Ballarat Victoria, where he was a local priest at the time. ("Vatican No. 3 Cardinal George Pell Convicted on Charges He Sexually Abused Choir Boys". The Daily Beast. 11 December 2018. Retrieved 16 December 2018.)
How, exactly, did he molest his victims? The article is still too vague. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really need to know which part of his body he used? Why the salacious interest? WWGB (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: Wikipedia is not censored. Any information covered by reliable sources may be included. Details of the crime are directly relevant to why the subject of this article is notable. To accuse another editor of mere "salacious interest" by pointing out that critical information is missing is poor faith. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It always amuses me when an uninvolved third editor feels the urge to interject in a discussion between two other editors, particularly to parrot bleeding obvious Wikipedia protocols. I wonder whether they never achieved their childhood dream to become a policeman. Some editors who boldly proclaim they are "retired" from Wikipedia seem incapable of adhering to their own decision. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool story, bro. –Zfish118⋉talk 19:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

The original first sentence makes no grammatical sense:

George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church and most senior convicted sex offender of the Catholic Church.[1][2][3][4][5]

It appears to be written to suggest that one can be a "senior" sex offender in the Catholic Church, which fails WP:Neutrality, among other policies. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sullivan, Margaret (12 December 2018). "A top cardinal's sex-abuse conviction is huge news in Australia. But the media can't report it there". The Washington Post. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  2. ^ O'Connell, Gerard (12 December 2018). "Cardinal Pell, top advisor to Pope Francis, found guilty of 'historical sexual offenses'". America magazine. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  3. ^ Cartwright, Lachlan (12 December 2018). "Vatican No. 3 Cardinal George Pell Convicted on Charges He Sexually Abused Choir Boys". The Daily Beast. New York. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  4. ^ Harlan, Chico. "Australian court convicts once-powerful Vatican official on sex-abuse-related charges". Washinton Post.
  5. ^ Horowitz, Jason; Povoledo, Elisabetta (12 December 2018). "Vatican Expels 2 Cardinals Implicated in Sexual Abuse From Pope's Council". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-12-14.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

Update infobox to include his conviction for child molestation. 129.127.145.232 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. There are no fields in Template:Infobox Christian leader for criminal convictions. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

His conviction has now been confirmed and I want this to be included.

In June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria, Australia with multiple historical sexual assault offences; he denied all charges.[1][2][3] The most serious charges were thrown out for "fundamental defects in evidence" and credibility issues over witnesses, but Pell was committed to stand trial on the lesser charges, pleading not guilty.[4] As Vatican Prefect for the Secretariat of the Economy, Pell is reported to be the most senior Catholic cleric in the world to face such charges.[2][1][5][6] On 16 August 2018, Spanish media reported that Pell had been removed from the Council of Cardinal Advisers due to the charges raised against him. [7] On 11 December 2018, Pell was found guilty on five charges related to sexual misconduct involving two boys in the 1990s. He is listed to be sentenced in February 2019 and is expected to appeal the conviction.[8][9][10] Pell's conviction was subject to a gag order issued by Judge Peter Kidd, which suppressed coverage of the conviction by Australian media companies.[11][12][13][14] On 12 December 2018, the day after Pell's conviction, the Holy See Press Office announced that Pope Francis had written to Pell at the end of October 2018 to thank him for his work on the Council of Cardinal Advisers since 2013; and terminated his appointment to the council.[15][16] His conviction was later confirmed by local sources on February 26, 2019.[17]"Cardinal George Pell convicted of child sex offences". 9news. February 26, 2019[18]

References

  1. ^ a b "George Pell, Catholic cardinal, charged with historical sexual assault offences". ABC News. 29 June 2017. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
  2. ^ a b "George Pell: How Italian media reacted to the historical sexual offence charges". ABC News. 30 June 2017. Retrieved 30 June 2017.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference ABC29-2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Younger, Emma (1 May 2018). "Cardinal George Pell pleads not guilty to historical sexual offence charges after being committed to stand trial". ABC News.
  5. ^ Nino Bucci; Tom Cowie; Nick Miller (30 June 2017). "Cardinal George Pell charged with historical sex offences". The Sydney Morning. Retrieved 27 July 2017.
  6. ^ Melissa Davey; Stephanie Kirchgaessner (29 June 2017). "Cardinal George Pell: Vatican official charged with multiple sexual offences". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 July 2017.
  7. ^ Eldiarios.es 16 August 2018 https://m.eldiario.es/sociedad/Papa-expulsara-implicados-pederastia-EEUU_0_804219699.html
  8. ^ "Australia's Cardinal Pell found guilty of sex abuse, expected to appeal". catholicregister.org. Retrieved 21 February 2019.
  9. ^ "Cardinal Pell, top advisor to Pope Francis, found guilty of 'historical sexual offenses'". America Magazine. 12 December 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  10. ^ Condon, Ed. "Reports of Pell guilty verdict emerge, despite gag order". Catholic News Agency. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  11. ^ "A top cardinal's sex-abuse conviction is huge news in Australia. But the media can't report it there". Washington Post. 12 December 2018. Retrieved 16 December 2018.
  12. ^ "Cardinal George Pell Reportedly Convicted of Sex Abuse Amid Gag Order in Australia". NPR. 13 December 2018. Retrieved 16 December 2018.
  13. ^ "Vatican No. 3 Cardinal George Pell Convicted on Charges He Sexually Abused Choir Boys". The Daily Beast. 11 December 2018. Retrieved 16 December 2018.
  14. ^ "Report: Third-Highest Ranking Vatican Official Convicted on Sex Abuse Charges in Australia". Slate. 12 December 2018. Retrieved 16 December 2018.
  15. ^ Burke, Greg (12 December 2019). "Briefing by the Director of the Holy See Press Office, Greg Burke, on the 27th Meeting of the Council of Cardinals with the Holy Father Francis, 12.12.2018" (Press release). Holy See Press Office. Retrieved 14 December 2019.
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference news remove 2018-12-13 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Craig Butt (February 26, 2019). "George Pell found guilty of child sex abuse: 'You're a monster'". news.com.au. Retrieved February 26, 2019.
  18. ^ "George Pell: Cardinal found guilty of sexual offences in Australia". BBC News. February 26, 2019. Retrieved February 26, 2019.

. ((cite news)): Check date values in: |date= (help); line feed character in |date= at position 49 (help) 2601:447:4101:5780:414C:1408:94AD:FC44 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Pell's conviction is covered adequately at George Pell#Criminal charges and conviction. WWGB (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Gag order penalties

Please add to the section on the gag order that in early February, Victoria's DPP, Kerri Judd QC, wrote to around 50 Australian news publishers, editors, broadcasters, reporters and subeditors, accusing them of breaking the gag order. Peter Kidd, the judge who laid the gag order, told a closed court that some of the breaches were serious and editors faced jail.[1]

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Meade, Amanda (26 February 2019). "Dozens of journalists accused of breaking Pell suppression order face possible jail terms". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 February 2019.

Beating around the bush: Criminal charges and conviction

The latest Reuters news Vatican treasurer convicted of sexually abusing 13-year-old boys is straightforward:

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Vatican treasurer Cardinal George Pell has been found guilty on five charges of child sexual abuse committed more than two decades ago against 13-year-old boys in Australia - the most senior Catholic cleric to be convicted of child sex offences.

then

He was convicted of five sexual offences committed against the 13-year-old choir boys 22 years earlier in the priests’ sacristy of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne, where Pell was archbishop. One of the two victims died in 2014.

Why his crime description under this section suffers from a large number of words signifying nothing.--93.86.142.92 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=note)) template (see the help page).

Categories