On 22 June 2017, Victoria Police announced Pell's arrest for historical sexual assault charges on two choirboys at St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne.

The High Court found there was a significant chance Pell was innocent because the evidence used to convict him did not establish his guilt to the required standard of proof.

Legal experts expressed countering views, with some defending the decision, and others highlighting concerns about judicial discretion and public access to the case as it was underway.

Pell was represented by Robert Richter, who claimed "only a madman" would sexually assault children in the sacristy after mass given the number of people coming and going from the room.

This permission, known as special leave, is considered based on whether the case involves a significant legal question of public importance or if there is a need to address issues affecting the broader administration of justice.

[8] Pell's defence argued that, based on the totality of the evidence, it was not possible for a jury rationally to find him guilty as accused, and that the majority of the Victorian Court of Appeal had erred in law by upholding the verdict.

To overturn a verdict, that court must then be satisfied that a rational jury would have found there to be a reasonable doubt as to the proof of guilt because of contradictions or deficiencies in the evidence presented at trial.

[11] Pope Francis, head of the Catholic Church, stated that he "welcomes the High Court's unanimous decision" and that he "has always expressed confidence in the Australian judicial authority".

[12] Shortly after Pell's release, Pope Francis held mass, inviting those present to pray for "all those people who suffer unjust sentences resulting from intransigence [against them]".

"[11] Pell released a statement saying he had "no ill will" toward his accuser and that he had "consistently maintained [his] innocence while suffering from a serious injustice...[which was] remedied...with the High Court's unanimous decision".

[11] Associate Professor of Law Andrew Hemming of the University of Southern Queensland defended the High Court's decision to overturn Pell's conviction and called it "predictable".

[13] He argued that the case involved "compounding improbabilities", key defence evidence, and a "forensic disadvantage" due to the time lapse.

He considered that Hemming and the High Court placed excessive weight on the witnesses who testified it was practically impossible for Pell to have committed the offences as he was rarely alone after mass.

[16] Patrick also disagreed with Hemming's support of the High Court finding it was improbable for Pell to have committed the offences, arguing the case should not have discussed what usually happens after ceremonies, or whether altar boys usually sneak into the sacristy.

Rather, the jury's role in the case was to evaluate the specific evidence (which Patrick described as compelling), provided by the victim for the instance he testified Pell did have the opportunity to molest him.

[17] The New York Times viewed the case as illustrating the significant judicial discretion in limiting public oversight and overturning jury verdicts.