Court orders for months had prevented publication of the details of that trial and an earlier trial on similar charges that had ended in September with a deadlocked jury.
Pell's lawyer Bret Walker told Justices Anne Ferguson, Chris Maxwell and Mark Weinberg today that the main ground for appeal was that the jury could not have found Pell guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence.
In written submissions, Pell's lawyers argue that more than 20 prosecution witnesses who had an official role in the Sunday Mass in 1996, after which the then-Archbishop Pell molested the boys in a rear room over five or six minutes, gave evidence that the offences did not or could not have occurred.
"This evidence constituted a catalogue of at least 13 solid obstacles in the path of a conviction," the submissions said.
"No matter what view was taken of the complainant as a witness, it was simply not open to a jury to accept his words beyond reasonable doubt," they added.
Professor Jeremy Gans, who heads Melbourne Law School and is an expert on Victoria criminal law, said Pell had a strong chance of winning the appeal on the ground that the verdicts were "unreasonable."
One of Pell's victims died of a heroin overdose in 2014 at the age of 31, apparently without making any accusation of abuse. State law prevents victims of sexual assault from being publicly identified.
If the appeal judges rule that the verdict is unsafe on the evidence, Pell would by acquitted and would not have to be retried. But Gans suspects the case could end up in the High Court, Australia's final appeals court.
"I think he's likely to win on the unsafe verdict ground," Gans said. "I'm sure whoever loses in the Court of Appeal is going to try to appeal in the High Court. Once it gets to the High Court, things get really unpredictable. They're the least predictable court in Australia."
Pell's lawyers have also said they will argue that the trial judge erred in not allowing them to use a video graphic in their closing address. They said the graphic would demonstrate that the crimes that were alleged would have been impossible.
A third ground details an alleged "fundamental irregularity" in the trial in that Pell was not arraigned — asked if he pleaded guilty or not guilty — in front of the chosen jury.
A victory on either of those grounds could result in Pell being retried. But he would likely be freed on bail until his third trial.
The Court of Appeal hears more challenges to the severity of sentences than applications like Pell's to have convictions overturned.
The Sentencing Advisory Council, a state government-funded advisory body, found last year that of the 230 appeals heard against Victoria court decisions in the 2013-14 financial year, only 49 were lodged by defendants solely against verdicts. The research did not show how many of those appeals against convictions succeeded.
In appeals against the severity of sentences, 29 per cent of defendants succeeded, while 70 per cent of prosecution appeals convinced the Court of Appeal to deliver tougher sentences.
While Pell remains Australia's highest-ranking Catholic, the Vatican has launched its own investigation into his convictions.
-AP
