Pell's lawyers list 13 reasons why jury verdict was 'unreasonable'

The Supreme Court released the written submissions from Pell's lawyers and prosecutors ahead of his appeal against convictions for child sex crimes.

Pell is three months into a six-year prison term after he was found guilty of five charges. His lawyers are appealing against those convictions on the basis the County Court jury's verdicts were "unreasonable".

Among the defence's written points were submissions that Pell would never have been left alone by church officials inside the East Melbourne cathedral, that it was "not possible" for two boys to be sexually assaulted in the sacristy undetected, that it was "not possible" for the boys to have re-entered the cathedral from outside without being seen, and that Pell's robes made the allegations "physically impossible".

The cardinal's lawyers said the allegations made by the surviving victim to the trial were "implausible".

Pell's lawyers said the Court of Appeal was obliged to put aside the jury's verdict and acquit the cardinal.

"In doing so, the court rectifies a miscarriage of justice where there is a significant possibility that an innocent man was convicted for crimes he did not commit," the defence submission says.

"It also restores community confidence in the robustness and integrity of our justice system and shows that the system, overall, is capable of dealing with high-profile and highly-charged matters by rationally, intellectually and objectively finding the facts and applying the law.

"Each of the verdicts should be quashed and substituted by verdicts of acquittal."

But prosecutors argued in submissions that the jury accepted the evidence the victim gave to trial and rejected Pell's denials.

"The jury were entitled to accept the complainant as a reliable and credible witness," prosecutors said in their written submission.

"He was skilfully cross-examined for two days by a very experienced member of Senior Counsel. During that time, the jury had the singular opportunity to observe the complainant as a witness, and to assess the evidence he gave, as it was tested by a detailed process of cross-examination. The complainant's allegations were not improbable when all of the evidence is carefully considered."

Prosecutors argued that when looking "at the whole of the evidence, the integrity of the jury's verdicts is unimpeachable. This ground should be refused."

Pell's lawyers have also challenged a ruling County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd made during the trial, and the fact the cardinal wasn't arraigned in front of the jury.

If the Court of Appeal finds in Pell's favour on the second and third points, it is likely to send the case back to the County Court for retrial.

But prosecutors urged the appeals judges to reject the second and third points, and argued that Judge Kidd was correct to rule out a video depiction that Pell's lawyers wanted to play to the jury, because it was new and had not been put to any of the witnesses.

They said the fact the jurors could see Pell being arraigned via video link - albeit they weren't in the same room as him - did not constitute a breach of law.