One of the first things taught by high school teachers of legal studies is the difference between a ‘not guilty’ verdict and factual innocence. Not guilty only means the charge against the accused is not proven to the standard required in criminal trials—beyond reasonable doubt. Consistent with the presumption of innocence, the standard of proof is deliberately set high: the prosecution needs to prove every element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. It’s not enough to prove that most of its case meets that standard. It’s all or nothing.

As I write this, the High Court will soon hear arguments and reach a decision on the appeal of George Pell, former Archbishop of Melbourne, against his conviction for historical child sex offences. In an earlier piece, I argued that it was open to the jury to conclude he was guilty. I also argued that a conviction is a conviction, not a finding to be held in abeyance until every appeal has failed. However, at the time of writing this piece, I don’t hold high hopes for the conviction to survive on appeal. I’ll explain why.