George Pell's lawyer Robert Richter apologises for 'plain vanilla' offending comments
Updated
George Pell's lawyer, Robert Richter QC, has apologised for describing Pell's crimes as "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case", after the words sparked a widespread backlash from abuse survivors.
Key points:
- Mr Richter has apologised for the "terrible choice of phrase"
- His description of Pell's offending sparked a fierce backlash from abuse survivors
- Mr Richter has vowed never to repeat such a "carelessness" in his choice of words
Mr Richter's comments were made at a plea hearing in Melbourne on Wednesday after Pell was convicted of sexually abusing two choirboys.
The offences were "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not volunteering or actively participating," Mr Richter told Victorian County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd during the hearing.
But Judge Kidd said he believed the crimes were a "serious example of this kind of offending", and that it was objective fact that it was a "forcible, blatant attack on two boys".
The use of the phrase was described as "outrageous" by Chrissie Foster, the mother of two girls abused by a Catholic priest and child protection advocate Hetty Johnston said the words would have come as a "slap" to abuse survivors.
Before Mr Richter had left the courtroom for Wednesday's lunch break, the crowd outside had also found out about his comments — and were furious.
As he walked outside, Mr Richter was jostled by abuse survivors and advocates, who shouted "dirty money".
In a statement released on Thursday evening, Mr Richter said he had spent a "sleepless night" reflecting on the "terrible" choice of words used in court.
"I offer my sincerest apologies to all who were hurt or offended by it. No offence was intended," Mr Richter said.
Robert Richter's full statement:
After spending a sleepless night reflecting upon the terrible choice of a phrase I used in court during the course of a long and stressful process, I offer my sincerest apologies to all who were hurt or offended by it. No offence was intended.
It was not intended to evade the seriousness of what had been done.
The seriousness of the crime was acknowledged at the outset by the concession that it merited imprisonment.
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.
I hope my apology is accepted as sincerely as it is meant and I will never repeat such carelessness in my choice of words which might offend.
Topics: law-crime-and-justice, courts-and-trials, child-abuse, community-and-society, melbourne-3000
First posted
