Top barrister, Robert Richter QC, will no longer represent Cardinal George Pell in court for his sentence and appeal, saying he is too emotional and angry about the guilty verdict handed down by the jury. Key points: Robert Richter says he will be available to help Pell's team and is angry and upset at the outcome Robert Richter says he will be available to help Pell's team and is angry and upset at the outcome He denies his decision is linked to an apology he made after describing Pell's offending as "plain vanilla" He denies his decision is linked to an apology he made after describing Pell's offending as "plain vanilla" The senior barrister says he continues to have every faith in Pell's case Pell was convicted of sexually abusing two choirboys while he was the archbishop of Melbourne in the 1990s. He is due to be sentenced on March 13 but has already lodged an appeal. "I'm too angry and upset at the outcome to bring the objectivity that an appeal requires," he said. Mr Richter said he will still be available to help Pell's legal team and is convinced he had a strong case in overturning what he called "a questionable conviction". "I will not be arguing the appeal myself simply because I believe the Cardinal deserves someone who can be dispassionate enough to present the case to the Court of Appeal," he said. "I'm too involved and I have been too involved for too long. "I have not abandoned the team and in fact I believe the appeal should be conducted by people who are not involved in the trial — but I have every faith in the Cardinal's case." Cardinal George Pell will be sentenced on March 13 and has signalled he will appeal. ( AAP: Erik Anderson Last week, Mr Richter issued an apology after he described Pell's abuse of a 13-year-old choir boy as "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case". In a statement he said he had reflected on what he termed "the terrible choice of a phrase". 'Not unusual' to step away from appeal However Mr Richter insisted his decision was not influenced by the controversy. "Not in the least," he said. "I thought I'd done a professional job here and I thought there would be an appropriate result. "I am disappointed but the appeal will determine whether my disappointment and anger at the jury's verdict was valid." He also said it was not unusual for him to step away from a case before it went to an appeal. "I very frequently do not appear in appeals of decisions in which I've done the trials or the pleas, because I think they usually require a clearer and more independent head to evaluate," he said. Bret Walker SC will run the appeal. A jury found Pell guilty of sexual penetration of a child under 16, as well as four counts of committing an indecent act with, or in the presence, of a child. The verdict relates to two different incidents that took place when he was the archbishop of Melbourne. Pell abused the two choirboys at Melbourne's St Patrick's Cathedral after celebrating one of his first Sunday masses as archbishop. He abused one of the boys a second time, two months later. Pell has always denied the allegations but he did not give evidence during the trial, nor make any public comment. Robert Richter will not be leading the appeal himself because he was "too involved." ( ABC News: Karen Percy His lawyer, Paul Galbally, released a statement after the suppression order lifted to confirm an appeal had been lodged. "Cardinal George Pell has always maintained his innocence and continues to do so," the statement said. "Although originally the Cardinal faced allegations from a number of complainants, all charges except for those the subject of the appeal have now been either withdrawn, discharged or discontinued. "He will not be commenting in the meantime." Editor's note: On Tuesday April 7, 2020, the High Court in a unanimous decision upheld Cardinal Pell's appeal and quashed his convictions on all five charges.<doc-sep>We take a look back at Cardinal George Pell’s history of denial in relation to sexual abuse within the Catholic Church. We take a look back at Cardinal George Pell’s history of denial in relation to sexual abuse within the Catholic Church.... The defence lawyer for convicted Cardinal George Pell will not head the appeal against the guilty ruling, saying he was “angry” at the verdict. Robert Richter, a high profile criminal defence QC, defended Pell against the case from the Department of Public Prosecutions, which saw the high profile Catholic charged with five offences against two teen choirboys. Last week Pell was found guilty on all five counts. Mr Richter has said he didn’t have “sufficient objectivity at this stage” to lead the team running Pell’s appeal, according to The Sydney Morning Herald. “I am very angry about the verdict,” Mr Richter told the Herald, “because it was perverse”. He said the case would be “better served by someone more detached”. “I think the man is an innocent man and he’s been convicted. It’s not a common experience,” he said. Mr Richter has been acting for Pell since he was first charged in 2017. High-profile barrister Bret Walker SC will head Pell’s appeal, according to The Herald Sun. Mr Richter told The Sydney Morning Herald it was unusual for him to participate in appeals cases after he had lost a case. He has denied reports he will quit the legal team altogether. Mr Richter made a number of arguments following the guilty verdict of his client, referring to the abused victims as “naughty boys” for drinking church wine in the lead up to being attacked. The Party Games newsletter Get your political briefing from news.com.au's political editor Samantha Maiden. Sign up The Party Games newsletter Success! Check your inbox for details. See all newsletters He referred to the sexual penetration of the young teenager as “plain” and “vanilla”. Mr Richter went on to suggest that Pell should get a slap on the wrist because his sex crimes against two boys lasted “less than six minutes”, there was “no ejaculation” and “no use of any implement”. His comments drew national outcry and Mr Richter was chased from the courtroom through the streets to his office. The attacks were condemned by Judge Kidd who referred to it as an “assault on the court”. Mr Richter issued an apology the following day, saying he had spent a sleepless night reflecting on the “terrible choice of phrase”. He referred to the case as a “long and stressful process”. “The seriousness of the crime was acknowledged at the outset by the concession that it merited imprisonment,” the apology read. “In seeking to mitigate sentence, I used a wholly inappropriate phrase for which I apologise profusely to all who interpreted it in a way it was never intended. “It was in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse, and in retrospect I can see why it caused great offence to many.”<doc-sep>An Australian jury has found Cardinal George Pell guilty of sexual abuse of two choirboys. An Australian jury has found Cardinal George Pell guilty of sexual abuse of two choirboys.... Robert Richter is softly spoken but his words have echoed around Australia. He is loved by his clients but loathed by members of the public for defending those deemed by some to be indefensible. The Melbourne-based lawyer representing disgraced former cardinal George Pell today stood inside a packed Victorian County Court metres from his ageing client and dug his heels in. Dressed in a black robe with matching black glasses, he called Pell’s 13-year-old victims “naughty boys” for drinking church wine before they were attacked. He argued that Pell’s crimes — which include sexual penetration of a child under 16 — were “plain” and “vanilla”. He suggested the Vatican’s third most senior catholic should get a slap on the wrist because his sex crimes against two boys lasted “less than six minutes”, there was “no ejaculation” and “no use of any implement”. The septuagenarian and atheist — who was twice today asked to raise his voice by Victoria County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd — is no stranger to controversy. He represented Hoddle Street Massacre architect Julian Knight on a pro-bono basis in 1998 and underworld figure Mick Gatto in 2005. Such was his gratitude, Gatto later had Mr Richter’s name tattooed on his chest. In the course of his job he’s represented tax cheats, bikies, fraudsters, surgeons and billionaires, but his display in court today was perhaps his most astonishing. Judge Kidd put him “on notice” for suggesting Pell’s crimes inside Melbourne’s St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996 were “on the low end of offending”. Judge Kidd said plainly that he would not entertain that notion. “People make reasoned choices,” he told the court. The Party Games newsletter Get your political briefing from news.com.au's political editor Samantha Maiden. Sign up The Party Games newsletter Success! Check your inbox for details. See all newsletters Pell’s lawyer tells the court his client’s victims “behaved in a naughty way” but drinking the church wine. Judge Kidd pulls him up immediately. “I’m not attracted to that submission.” @newscomauHQ — Rohan Smith (@Ro_Smith) February 27, 2019 “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. He told Mr Richter that Pell’s crimes were not “trifling”. During a lunch break today, Mr Richter was hounded by members of the public. When proceedings resumed, the court heard he was “verbally abused”. Judge Kidd condemned the abuse and described it as an “assault on the court”. “I view that as raising a really serious example of contempt … and I would want to see that person prosecuted,” he said. “This is not a game — the system requires defence counsel to defend people.” At the end of proceedings today as the defence lawyer made the short walk to his chambers, one bystander yelled: “What’s it like defending a rat?” “Not as bad as it would be defending you,” he shot back. Pell did not leave the courthouse this afternoon. He sat in the dock for more than five hours. At times he removed his glasses and rubbed his eyes for long periods. The 77-year-old was found guilty in December of sexually penetrating one choirboy and molesting another, but the verdict was not made public until yesterday. The court today heard how Pell discovered the two boys drinking sacramental wine in a corridor away from members of the public. Richter is saying Pell has done an enormous amount of good to society. It reminds me comments made to me when I tell people I cover Catholic church abuse and concealment; "Well, the church has done a lot of good". Doesn't wash with me. Irrelevant. — Melissa Davey (@MelissaLDavey) February 27, 2019 Crown prosecutor Mark Gibson said he then commenced a “brazen, forceful” sexual assault. “Shortly after Pell came upon the (victims), he committed an indecent act upon (one of them). This involved placing the boy’s face or head in close proximity to his genital region. A short time after this, he sexually penetrated (the other boy),” Mr Gibson said. “He then committed another indecent act … this involved touching the boy’s genitals. While this was occurring, Pell touched his own genitals.” Mr Gibson said a month after the first incident, one of the boys was approached again in a back corridor. “Cardinal Pell pushed himself again (the boy) and squeezed his genitals for a brief period,” he said. Mr Richter argued the fifth charge, which occurred a month after the first, did not warrant jail time on its own. But Judge Kidd said multiple times it was unhelpful to compare one sex crime against a child with another. While many viewed today’s performance as out of place with legal arguments around child sex abuse, Guardian journalist Melissa Davey tweeted that Richter was simply doing what he does best. “I know many following my tweets are surprised and shocked by the comments of Pell’s defence barrister Robert Richter,” she wrote. “But this is classic Richter. It is what he is renowned for. He toned it down a bit in the trial but what we’re seeing today is Richter’s style in force.” Outside court, after Pell had his bail officially revoked, Mr Richter was asked whether he regretted making the comments about “plain vanilla” sex crimes. He told Sky News: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Pell has been remanded in custody to reappear in the County Court on March 13 for sentencing. rohan.smith1@news.com.au | @ro_smith — with Stephanie Bedo<doc-sep>Cardinal George Pell, the most senior Catholic cleric ever convicted of child sexual abuse, has been taken in custody following a sentencing hearing in which his lawyer described one of Pell’s offences as a “plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating”. After the hearing, with Pell’s lawyer, Robert Richter, having withdrawn his application for bail, the chief judge said: “Take him away, please.” Pell was taken to a maximum security facility where he will be kept in protective custody and remain alone for up to 23 hours a day. He will be sentenced on 13 March after his conviction for sexually assaulting two 13-year-old boys. The Vatican on Wednesday also said its doctrinal department will open its own investigation into Pell. “After the guilty verdict in the first instance concerning Cardinal Pell, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) will now handle the case following the procedure and within the time established by canonical norm,” Vatican spokesman Alessandro Gisotti told reporters. A former US cardinal, Theodore McCarrick, was this month dismissed from the priesthood following a CDF investigation. The former Australian prime minister John Howard was among those who provided character references for Pell as the cardinal’s legal team tried to argue for a lower-end sentence in Melbourne’s county court on Wednesday morning. Richter tried to argue there were “no aggravating circumstances” to one of the offences. It was “no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating,” he told the court. The chief judge, Peter Kidd, responded: “It must be clear to you by now I’m struggling with that submission. Looking at your points here – so what?” He said he saw Pell’s behaviour as “callous, brazen offending” and “shocking conduct”. “He did have in his mind some sense of impunity. How else did he think he would get away with this? There was an element of force here ... this is not anywhere near the lower end of offending.” Richter also tried to suggest that an incident in which Pell grabbed one of the boys by the genitals in an attack that lasted seconds was “fleeting” and not worthy of a jail sentence. Kidd disagreed. “That wasn’t just a trifling sexual assault,” he said. “Nothing is to be gained here by comparing different forms of sexual abuse of children. Of course I need to make a judgement of the overall gravity of this. But there is a limit to these kinds of comparisons.” Abuse survivors and advocates present in the court gasped as Richter made his arguments for a lower-end sentence. He said at one point that if Pell’s victims were “truly distressed” after being abused, they would have returned to their homes exhibiting that distress. 03:33 George Pell: David Marr on the cardinal's rise and fall – video explainer Richter said he was in a difficult position because he could only propose a sentence based on the jury’s finding of guilt, not on the basis that Pell maintained his innocence. He said Pell did not have a pattern of offending and had not planned the attack, and so would have been “seized by some irresistible impulse”. Kidd responded: “You put to the jury only a madman would commit these offences. The jury rejected that. There are no medical records suggesting he is mad. The only inference I can make is that he thought he could get away with it. People don’t go ahead and do what he did without thinking about it. People make choices.” Prosecutors described Pell as having “a degree of callous indifference” as he “humiliated, degraded” and sexually abused the boys. This offending, prosecutors said, should attract a significant sentence. Prosecutor Mark Gibson said the offending of Pell was serious, especially given his position of authority at the time. “These acts … were in our submission humiliating and degrading towards each boy and gave rise to distress in each boy as referred to in the evidence [the complainant] gave. [The victim] recalled voicing objection.” He said Pell’s offending implied “a degree of callous indifference in relation to those objections”. “His state of mind suggests he had some degree of confidence as to the unlikelihood that these two boys would complain,” he said. In response, Richter submitted a book of sentencing arguments to Kidd, which included medical records and character references from high-profile figures including Howard and the president of the Australian Catholic University, Greg Craven. Richter said he could have provided the court with “hundreds” of character references for Pell, but had narrowed the list down. All those who gave references knew of Pell’s conviction, he said. The character references spoke of Pell’s kindness and generosity “above and beyond that of a priest”, of “a man who has a great sense of humour” who relates “to everyone “from prime ministers to street cleaners”, Richter said. The hearing was attended by dozens of abuse survivors and advocates, as well as supporters of Pell. The survivors wore badges emblazoned with quotes about child abuse from Pell over the years; “it was not of much interest to me” and “it’s all gossip until it’s proven in a court”. Pell was found guilty in December of one count of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 and four counts of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16. Each conviction carries a maximum jail term of 10 years. At the trial the complainant, now 35, said he and the other choirboy had separated from the choir procession as it exited the church building. He and the other boy sneaked back into the church corridors and entered the priest’s sacristy, a place they knew they should not be. There they found some sacramental wine and began to drink. The complainant alleged that Pell had walked in on them. Pell then manoeuvred his robes to expose his penis. He stepped forward, grabbed the other boy by the back of his head, and forced the boy’s head on to his penis, the complainant told the court.<doc-sep>
Cardinal George Pell will be remanded in custody until March 13th after being found guilty of child sex abuse. Cardinal George Pell will be remanded in custody until March 13th after being found guilty of child sex abuse.... George Pell’s defence lawyer has issued a grovelling apology a day after his sensational description in court of the Cardinal’s crimes as “plain vanilla sex acts”. The Melbourne-based lawyer representing the country’s most senior Catholic yesterday called Pell’s 13-year-old victims “naughty boys” for drinking church wine before they were attacked. He argued that Pell’s crimes — which include sexual penetration of a child under 16 — were “plain” and “vanilla”. Mr Richter’s characterisation of the molestation and rape of the boys sparked outrage, as did his argument that his client should get a slap on the wrist because his depraved acts lasted “less than six minutes”, there was “no ejaculation” and “no use of any implement”. In a statement released on Thursday afternoon, Robert Richter said he had spent “a sleepless night reflecting upon the terrible choice of phrase” that he used in court. Mr Richter said he used the words during the course of a “long and stressful process” and offered his “sincerest apologies to all who were hurt or offended by it”. The “plain vanilla sex acts” description was “not intended to evade the seriousness of what had been done”, Mr Richter said. “The seriousness of the crime was acknowledged at the outset by the concession that it merited imprisonment,” the apology read. “In seeking to mitigate sentence, I used a wholly inappropriate phrase for which I apologise profusely to all who interpreted it in a way it was never intended. “It was in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse, and in retrospect I can see why it caused great offence to many.” Video has been released of a police interview with George Pell in 2016 about child sex abuse allegations.... Video has been released of a police interview with George Pell in 2016 about child sex abuse allegations. When pressed on the phrase outside court yesterday, Mr Richter told a reporter that he had “no idea what you’re talking about”. The Party Games newsletter Get your political briefing from news.com.au's political editor Samantha Maiden. Sign up The Party Games newsletter Success! Check your inbox for details. See all newsletters Today, he promised to “never repeat such carelessness in my choice of words” again. Victoria County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd yesterday put Mr Richter “on notice” for suggesting Pell’s crimes inside Melbourne’s St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996 were “on the low end of offending”. Judge Kidd said plainly that he would not entertain that notion. “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.” He told Mr Richter that Pell’s crimes were not “trifling”. Pell has been remanded in custody to reappear in the County Court on March 13 for sentencing.