An insight into John Button’s life, a man who lived without social respect for 39 years.
In this project, we learnt about the principles of justice that uphold Australia’s legal system, such as the presumption of innocence, an impartial judiciary, and the right to legal representation. I studied the case of John Button and analysed how these principles were both upheld and violated in this case. After writing an essay on the topic, we were required to incorporate feedback and edit the essay so that it was fit for online publication. This essay is the end result of that editing process. It demonstrates my ability to take feedback, and to refine a piece of written work to produce a professional result.
Our legal system aims to uphold justice. To achieve this, they follow the principles of justice. However, in the case of John Button not all principles of justice were upheld. Through this studied case, there were principles of justice that were evident, such as the right to appeal. However, certain principles of justice were ignored. There were many injustices such as, innocent until proven guilty, equal treatment before the law and burden and standard of proof. Below, I’ll be explaining the extent to which justice was upheld in John Button’s case.
On John’s 19th birthday, Rosemary Anderson, his girlfriend was found lying on the side of the road. John, who had found the body, carried her to a surgery where the doctor called the ambulance and police. John was brought to the state central police station where he was questioned for hours. He was beaten by the senior policeman, John Wiley, into signing a statement which stated John had hit Rosemary. Later in trial, John was convicted of manslaughter by the jury and sentenced to five years in jail. In 1969. Eric Edgar Cooke confessed to hitting Rosemary with a stolen car and provided evidence to an appeal for John Button. Police records and witnesses supported the evidence, but the judges ignored Eric stating that he made all of it up just to prolong his death sentence. John Button remained convicted of manslaughter until 2002 where a private investigator found new evidence supporting John’s innocence, squashing the conviction.
In this case, there were many injustices that occurred throughout John Button’s case, such as innocent until proven guilty. An aspect of this principle shows that the accused should have the right to safety. This is important in achieving justice as if the accused feels that they’re put in danger, e.g., threatened or abused, it could affect the outcome and credibility of their trial. This principle was not followed as John was questioned for hours immediately after the death of one of his loved ones, overwhelmed with negative emotions. As John stated in a news article, “at that point my world came to an end and I was devastated, I just had to get away and cry somewhere quiet.” John was beaten and threatened into signing a false statement that set him up. The police would not stop questioning or drilling punches into John’s stomach until he confessed to a crime, he wasn’t even responsible for. This shows that there was no protection evident, and John Button was given no right to feel a sense of safety.
Another principle, equal treatment before the law, was not supported in this case. This principle supports that any person accused has the right to an extensive investigation. John Button was the only person accused right after the crime. There was nobody else questioned, or any professional investigation into the crime. Eric Edgar Cooke who was a serial killer at the time, well known for hit and runs was never questioned or investigated upon, whom in the end, did turn out to be the person behind the murder of Rosemary Anderson. There could have also been an investigation into the dent on John’s car which would have shown if it were made by the impact of a body, giving the prosecution certain evidence. As stated by John, he had hit another car on accident when trying to get out of parking. Moreover, when John had gotten out of jail and hired a private professional to investigate the dent, they found evidence that proved John not guilty. The dent perfectly matched up with the shape of the car that John claimed he had hit. If there was a detailed analysis on the key evidence found in the crime, John would have never wasted 30 years of his life trying to prove himself innocent.
Burden and standard of proof was another injustice shown evident. This means that it’s on the prosecution to prove the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In order for evidence to be beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution should be 99.9% certain of their evidence, with no assumption or bias. In John Button’s case the final sentence was heavily based off the signed statement forced upon John. Even when there was heavy evidence showing John’s innocence, his final sentence was not changed. When Eric Edgar Cooke confessed to the hit and run of Rosemary Anderson and provided evidence supported by police and witness records, it was disregarded. The 99.9% of evidence came from false statements yet evidence supported and beyond reasonable doubt was ignored and seen not useful towards the case.
In this case a principle of justice that was followed was the right to appeal. This gives the accused, if found guilty, the right to give evidence to a panel of three judges. The accused tries to prove themselves innocent or tries to persuade the judge to changing their final sentence. In John Button’s case, John was given the right as he appealed numerous of times in jail and outside of jail. A panel of three judges heard his evidence given and made decisions only based off it. When John appealed inside jail it took place 4 months after he was sentenced to 5 years in jail (1964). This appeal was based off evidence provided by Eric Edgar Cooke, the serial killer behind the hit and run who provided his accounts that matched up with police records and witnesses. When John was freed from jail, he didn’t stop appealing. John Button’s last appeal was in 2002 where his conviction was squashed, and he came out a free man.
John was exonerated of manslaughter in 2002 (33 years after convicted of manslaughter) and his conviction was squashed, a product of John and Estelle’s hard work.
With all the evidence provided, there was a majority of injustices over principles of justice supported. John Button was harmed, beaten into signing a false statement, proven guilty through an unfair, poorly led investigation and was wrongfully convicted by little evidence definitely not beyond reasonable doubt. It is clear that justice was not upheld in the John Button case with many principles of justice ignored and the countless occurrences of injustices. However, John Button did finally achieve justice through an appeal he won in 2002. After 33 years of trying to prove his innocence he became a free man and was compensated $460,000. John has now moved from Perth and spends more time with his loving wife and five grandchildren. In the future, hopefully justice prevails in our society with no occurrences of injustices, so that every case is fair.