“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 Gene Gibson, 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.”
The Australian legal system seeks to justify citizens wrongdoings by nine different principles of justice, which have been integrated into the modern-day functioning of the legal systems for them to be just and equal, but there are still occasions when these principles are entirely disregarded, resulting in innocent people being sentenced. Gene Gibson was a young Aboriginal man, who after being unfairly treated by the police, was accused of murdering young Broome man Josh Warneke. Advised by his lawyers to plead guilty, he was sentenced to a jail term of seven-and-a-half-years, however, his conviction was set aside in a unanimous decision made by the Court of Appeal. The injustices that he faced within his case were his rights to equal treatment before the law, being innocent until proven guilty, and his right to silence. A principle of justice that was kept was Gene’s right to appeal
On the 26th of February 2010, a 21-year-old man by the name of Josh Warneke was found dead on the side of the road by a taxi driver, just after he was seen leaving the local nightclub. The Major Crime Squad (MCS) took over the investigation and called it Operation Aviemore. A post-mortem examination found that the cause of death was head injury in a man with acute alcohol intoxication. The head injuries consisted of bruises, abrasions, lacerations along with extensive fracturing of the skull and injury to the brain. The MCS had conduct different homicide investigations from 2010 – 2012. Using this, they were able to identify several suspects, one of which was Gene Gibson. Gene was 18-years-old in 2010. He lived in Kiwikurra, sometimes described as the most remote country of Australia. He had a mental impairment and his English understanding was basic. He had bad habits from a very young age. He was sniffing petrol at the age of 12 and already had smoked marijuana at the age of 15. For a short time, Gibson wasn’t a major person of interest during the investigation, however witnesses said that Gibson was in the car the night of Josh’s murder. After a few unjust interviews, police unfairly accused Gibson of manslaughter, despite the rejection faced in the court, Gibson pleaded guilty and was jailed for four years and eight months until the Court of Appeal quashed his conviction after discovering that not only was his interviews corrupted, but his lawyers forced him to plead guilty.
The principle of justice, equal treatment before the law is when a person is to be given equal treatment irrespective of race, gender, mental and physical disability as well as given rights to legal representation, interpreters and access to all facts and evidence presented by the prosecution. This principle is important in our justice system because it allows the accused to have a fair and equitable trial in which they can prove their innocence. In Gene Gibson’s case, he wasn’t given this opportunity. His Aboriginal race caused him to be discriminated against, and his mental condition was overlooked. Despite the prosecution’s knowledge of his poor understanding of the English language, he was denied the right to an interpreter. As a result of his limited understanding of the English language, he was accused of manslaughter. Notwithstanding the rejection already given, he pleaded guilty as he was told to by his lawyers. Because of the prosecution’s unfairness and harsh punishment, an innocent man was sentenced to jail for a crime he did not commit.
Being innocent until proven guilty means that the accused is to be treated innocent until the prosecution has proven to an impartial judge and jury. The presumption of the accused being innocent in a court case is crucial to ensure a fair trial and to respect the human dignity of people who are accused of committing a crime. For Gene, he was disrespected and treated as if he was guilty. During his interviews, the MCS made a statement saying that Gibson cannot be eliminated as being involved in the death of Josh Warneke. Gibson was already guilty of having stolen a motor vehicle on the night of Josh’s death, but the MCS completely ignored that and pressed charges against him for manslaughter. So despite being guilty for stealing, they presumed him guilty for another completely unrelated matter.
The right to silence in a criminal case means that a person suspected of committing a criminal offence has the right not to speak and remain silent and are given this right throughout the whole investigation, however, they are still legally required to give information like their name and house address. This principle’s importance in a court case allows for the accused to prevent themselves from self-incrimination, which is the act of giving evidence that may expose the witness as the person who committed the crime. For Gibson, he wasn’t given this right, for he was forced to take interviews and didn’t have an understanding of language, so, therefore, could not have understood basic police instructions. Therefore in doing this, he gave away evidence that led to him being charged and eventually ending up in prison
Even though there were a lot of principles of justice that were either ignored or corrupted in this court case, some were still upheld like Gene’s right to appeal. The right to appeal is an application to a higher court by a party who believes the decision made by the subsequent lower court was incorrect. In Gibson’s case this was supported, for after spending four years and eight months in prison, he was able to have his case heard in the Court of Appeal which in turn led to his release after they learnt about the injustices in the legal system that he faced, showing how Gene’s right to appeal was a principle of justice upheld among the many that were ignored.
In conclusion, Gene Gibson went through a lot of injustices in the legal system, however there were still principles that were upheld. In total, the justice-involved in the case of Gene Gibson was upheld to a very minimal standard. Compromised by his rights to being equally treated before the law, being innocent until proven guilty and his right to silence, he was still allowed to have a right to appeal. In saying this, there are many incidents where people have suffered miscarriages of justice within the legal system, so to help, there should be changes made to better help people going through the system be treated in an equal and fair matter benefitting all Australians and society in the long run.