The High Court did not find that Pell was innocent. They found that the evidence presented was not so conclusive that it allowed no room for reasonable doubt. (in other words they opted for that third option 'not proven')
The trial juury obviously felt the evidence was sufficiently compelling, and since, to the best of my knowledge, none of us here were actually in that courtroom, I don't think we are in a position to say whether or not we would have found it equally so.
