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 v State of Western Australia, 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.
Lloyd Rayney vs The State of Western Australia:
Lloyd Rayney was a barrister in Perth and he lived with his two daughters and wife Corryn Rayney. On September 11th Mrs. Rayney was found dead in a makeshift grave in king’s park. Police found her body by following an oil trail from her car to the grave site. This case lasted for many years which as a result slandered Mr. Rayney’s career.
As he received death threats and vandalized mail. Mr. Rayney even threatened to sue the police after sergeant Jack Lee stated publicly that “Mr. Rayney is the only likely suspect in the case”. A year After Mr. Rayney was released on bail. He was arrested in Perth CBD. We will now explore where the principles of justice; including: A Right to a fair hearing, Judiciary and judge remains impartial, A right to a reasonable appeal and ALL Equal before the law.
Mr. Rayney was on trial in 2013 where he pled not guilty. This was a criminal case which was held under the quota “Innocent until proven guilty” this was shown during the trial when Mr. Rayney was released on bail. Furthermore, when Mr. Rayney was on trial after his arrest the judiciary power did not consider sergeant Jack lee’s statement when deciding whether Mr Rayney was guilty or not. This proves that during the trial Rayney v the State of Western Australia. Mr. Rayney was considered equal before the law. In This case the law was upheld. This is important because if there is biased then the verdict will not be accurate. As a decision in court should remain un-biased and based on evidence only.
Prior to the trial the defendant (Mr. Rayney) called for a request that a jury was not present during his case. This request was granted. But there was another issue. Due to the fact that Mr. Rayney was a lawyer in western Australia, the judges would be biased since they already know him and have worked with him. So, a judge from the northern territory called Judge Brian Ross Martin was called to adjudicate the case. This is proof that the trial was fair. A Fair trial is important for a fair case. Having a fair trial could can effect an innocent persons life for the better. A fair trial is a principle that is quite similar to the previous principle by making the court a fair and only favoring evidence-only based decisions. Mr Rayney was a former barrister so he knew how to deal with a case and refused a jury under his own request.
As the case came to a close Mr Rayney’s verdict came out. He was deemed “not guilty”. But the prosecution was not happy with the verdict, so they decided to call for an appeal and take the case to the high court. After this appeal was looked over by 3 other judges from the Australian states: VIC, NT and NSW They dismissed it and Mr. Rayney was free to go. This was proof the right to appeal was upheld as it was looked over. The Right to a reasonable appeal is an interesting principle as it is quite different from the other 3. It states that either the prosecution or the defense can call for an “appeal” If they aren’t happy with the final verdict given by a judge. An Appeal is a call to take this case to a higher court in hopes for a different verdict or more time to gather intel. However, this appeal needs to be looked over by a panel of 3 other judges that aren’t affiliated with the case already. Then the judges come to a verdict of their own and decide whether the appeal should be granted or not.
The Final principle “The judge and judiciary should remain impartial during the course of the case. This is an important principle especially in this case. Lloyd Rayney and his wife were of an Indian descent. A jury member could have been racist to Lloyd Rayney’s race and would be biased when it came to a verdict. In 2003, Mr Rayney sued an art critic by the name of Robert Hughes for calling him a “curry muncher”. Luckily in the case Mr Rayney did not have a jury and the judge and prosecution had nothing against Lloyd Rayney or his family. This principle is pretty self-explanatory and is quite similar the first 2. The Judge and Judiciary must not have anything against the defense OR prosecution. This is also to avoid having a biased, racist or unfair trial.
The Lloyd Rayney case was quite a fair case despite some of its issues such as: Sergeant Jack Lee’s statement and having to bring a judge from the northern territory. The case WAS won by Mr Rayney but he did lose his wife, Received death threats, Obtained vandalized mail and got his title slandered. All the principles of justice were upheld in this case. None were not. Today, Lloyd Rayney has been stripped of his Lawyer rank for secretly recording his wife before her death and submitting inadmissible evidence to the court.