Greg McIntyre explains why Pell broadcast was important

The sentencing of George Pell is a matter of significant public interest.

It was appropriate, as a manifestation of the principle of open justice, that the County Court of Victoria decided that it would allow the proceedings to be broadcast live on television and radio.

The criminal process, by its very nature, is a public process.

In historical eras, when populations were smaller, the public were able to be physically present to observe the operation of the court system.

In present times that is appropriately replicated with the use of the electronic media.

Pell, his position in a significant institution nationally and internationally, and the conduct involved — which is similar to conduct that was the subject of an extensive royal commission in Australia and the subject of much reporting around the world — is legitimately a matter of particular public interest. The County Court, in deciding to take the course of a live broadcast of Chief Judge Peter Kidd’s sentencing remarks, announced that it did so because it is “committed to the principles of open justice”.

That every one of the sentencing judge’s reasons for choosing the penalties he chose are published publicly allows the public to better understand the decision made than if they only received a selective summary.

Empirical research has generally shown that the public more often than not agrees with the decision made by the judge when it knows all matters taken into account by judges in sentencing.

The Chief Judge has explained why he chose to arrive at an overall sentence of six years, with eligibility for parole after three years and eight months.

Some members of the public may have a different view about the appropriate term.

However, they know what led to Chief Judge Kidd’s view.

A sentencing judge is obliged to take into account the aims of sentencing: retribution, denunciation, protection of the public, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation.

The court also takes into account the personal circumstances of the offender, including age and history of offending.

The public can be reassured that Chief Judge Kidd carefully balanced those factors.