While courts are generally open to the public, and operate on the principle that open justice is a fundamental rule of the common law, it has relied on people attending in person. Filming and transmitting proceedings has been a little too progressive.

Most people do not attend courts, at least willingly. The consequence is that a majority of people experience court processes via television shows, often American, which are entertainment.

The reality of court proceedings, as people have seen in the live streaming of Cardinal George Pell's appeal against his conviction for child sex offences, is far different.

There was a line outside the Victorian Supreme Court Wednesday morning for the start of the appeal. But by the afternoon session the public gallery was reduced to journalists, a small number of Pell supporters and advocates for child sexual abuse survivors.

The live streamed version of the Pell appeal did not make for riveting viewing. But the public screening of the appeal is important, just the same.

The Pell case is one of the most fraught in recent memory. The Catholic Church's third most powerful man is arguing his conviction for child sex offences is "unreasonable".

The hearing on Wednesday had Pell's barrister methodically pulling apart the prosecution case, point by point, detail by detail, and answering questions put by the judges.

There were no dramatic flourishes or personal attacks between lawyers, as court proceedings are depicted on television.

The Pell appeal was calm. It was fair. It was reasonable. And it provided the kind of evidence needed to show that when a person is convicted of serious crimes in Australia they have the right to appeal, and the appeal process is robust.

The Victorian Supreme Court allowed live streaming of the Pell appeal to enable "interested persons" to view proceedings, assist media who could not attend in person, and for educational purposes. And it helps maintain public confidence.