George Pell: How did the court arrive at the sentence?
It took Chief Judge Peter Kidd nearly an hour to reveal how long Cardinal George Pell would spend in jail.
But as the judge came to the numbers – six years' jail, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months – there was some outrage and confusion at the length of the sentence when the maximum penalty for his crimes was 10 years for each charge.
So how do courts measure an appropriate sentence to fit a crime?
First, it's important to note there is no baseline or mandatory sentence for – for example, the sexual penetration of a child in Victoria.
Instead, there are maximum sentences available to judges.
Beyond those maximum sentences judges must weigh a range of factors in determining a sentence.
These include general and specific deterrence (the message a sentence may signal to the broader community and to the offender specifically), the protection of the community, the offender's prospects of rehabilitation, and a "just" punishment.
Judge Kidd's sentencing remarks, which were broadcast live – a highly unusual move for a Victorian court – ran to 16 pages and took him more than an hour to read.
Pell's jailing makes him the latest but most high-profile, Catholic figure to be incarcerated for the sexual abuse of children.
But in the eyes of the law, Pell's abuse of two choirboys in the 1990s must be treated as an individual case and not part of a pattern of abuse against children by churchmen.
"The rule of law demands that when I sentence you, I must do so independently of any outside influences, only upon the evidence before me, and upon established legal principles," Judge Kidd said.
Later, he went on: "You are not to be made a scapegoat for any failings or perceived failings of the Catholic Church. Nor are you being sentenced for any failure to prevent or record child sexual abuse by other clergy within the Catholic Church."
Nor, Judge Kidd added, could Pell's sentencing erase or assuage the trauma suffered by other sexual abuse survivors.
"This sentence is not and cannot be a vindication of your trauma," he said. "Cardinal Pell has not been convicted of any wrongs committed against you."
In sentencing, judges are required by law to consider a range of factors including the severity of offences and the impacts of those offences on victims.
They are also required to take several factors into account that could reduce the severity of a sentence, known as mitigating factors.
Throughout his trial Pell has maintained his innocence. His legal team has lodged an appeal to his conviction. That looming appeal did not affect Judge Kidd's sentence, but Pell's plea of not guilty did.
Had Pell pleaded guilty to his crimes, Judge Kidd said, he would have received a reduced sentence that he did not now qualify for.
Judge Kidd took into account Pell's age, the seriousness of the offences, Pell's clean record since the offences, the grave breaches of trust represented by Pell's abusing his position to abuse the boys, and the impact of his crimes on his victims.
In 1993, Pell walked side-by-side into court with his former housemate, priest Gerald Ridsdale.
Ridsdale is now known as one of Australia's worst paedophile priests.
He has admitted sexually abusing at least 65 children, while he was moved around Victoria and NSW by the church hierarchy, who were aware of his crimes.
He has been in jail since 1994, with 161 convictions for abuse. The earliest Ridsdale can be released is April 2022, with many of the sentences running concurrently.
But in the eyes of the law, sentencing must be done according to each case.
"It is not a mathematical exercise," Judge Kidd told Pell, who can't apply for parole until October 2022.
"This balancing act is inevitably unique to the specific facts and circumstances of your case. This is what individualised justice demands."