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 Lloyd Rayney, 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 Lloyd Rayney case was a case that went from 2007 to 2013 where Lloyd Rayney was convicted of murdering his wife Corryn Rayney. The principles of justice were used throughout this case and supported the case in many ways, either serving their purpose or doing the opposite. The principles showed that and helped this case to be fair, but in some aspects, unfair.

Right to silence is the principle that allows the accused to have a judge only trial. On December 29, 2011, a chief is appointed to see Lloyd Rayney’s case without a jury. This is necessary because the trial was very public, and the jury would have been very biased and would have been an unfair trial in many ways. The reason I believe this principle of justice was served and helped the case be fair is because, the jury wouldn’t have listen to the evidence and chosen that he was guilty before even going into court. This is because the police had made this case very public which allowed people to be biased and opinionated. A judge on the other hand will always have an opinion and it will almost never be biased. The judge in the case acquitted Lloyd Rayney because there wasn’t even evidence to prove he was guilty or innocent. Whereas Lloyd Rayney would be most likely of been found guilty if there was a jury.

The principle of justice reliable evidence was not served in this case. The cause for this is because Lloyd Rayney was acquitted meaning there was not enough evidence from the prosecution and the defense. Forensics searched through Corryn Rayney’s hair and found nothing, but a few days later the police claimed that the scientist had missed 3 large seed pods in her hair, which they assumed to have come from the Rayney’s front garden when Lloyd Rayney dragged her body across their front garden. The forensic scientist was shocked and extremely surprised when he had

realised, he had. This was later found false and that the seed pods came from Kings Park, because of this people speculate that the police tried to plant evidence to try and blame Lloyd Rayney even more then he had already been blamed as the police and detective claimed him to be the prime and only suspect.

Individuals have the right to a fair hearing which means that all people are equal before courts and tribunals and that the right to a fair and public hearing before a competent, independent, and impartial court or tribunal established by law. This case had a fair hearing because of the other principle the right to silence. As mentioned earlier if there was a jury the case would have been very biased and unfair and would have sent Lloyd Rayney to jail without listening to the evidence, it would have been biased since this case, as mentioned earlier was very public and blamed Lloyd Rayney without looking through all the evidence clearly. The police stated that he was the only suspect which caused the public to create opinions, and still to this date people believe he is guilty because of how public the case was. Since Mr Rayney was acquitted, shows that this principle has been served throughout the case.

The principle of justice, reasonable doubt was served in the case and there

was not enough evidence from the to prove that Lloyd Rayney was guilty of murdering his wife. On July 16, 2012 Mr. Rayney’s trial began and on November 1, 2012 he was found not guilty of murder. Although a few months later on August 5, 2013, the prosecutors argued in the Court of Criminal Appeal that Mr. Rayney should be retried, saying important evidence was not properly considered at trial. This causes Lloyd Rayney to be acquitted, to be acquitted means to be as there was not enough evidence to prove if we was guilty or innocent.

These are the reasons that this case was fair but had some flaws which should have been improved in way different ways. Some principles had been served and others had been flawed. If any new evidence were found Lloyd Rayney would have a re-trial and would be found guilty or innocent and that these principles would help again to keep the case fair.