Lloyd Rayney Murder Case

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 analyzed 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.

In the Lloyd Rayney murder case, the principles of justice were mostly upheld but were however compromised in some instances. The main principles of justice are equality before the law, the right to a fair trial, the independence and impartiality of the judicial/court system, and the right to an appeal. Lloyd Rayney was accused of his wife’s murder between the evening of Tuesday 7^th August 2007 or the early hours of Wednesday 8^th August. Her body was found buried in Kings Park on Wednesday 15^th August 2007. The accused was later found not guilty by a judge as there was no jury present. As you will later hear about, equality before the law, right to a fair trial, and right to an appeal were supported throughout the case whereas the impartiality and independence of the judiciary were undermined.

In this case, equality before the law was upheld consistently. Equality before the law means that a person should be treated and sentenced fairly no matter their age, race, ethical background, gender, level of income, mental capacity, and any other traits/details that could be an advantage or disadvantage to the individual. This is a important as it ensures that no-one is biased against and towards. This guarantees that the court system is fair and just. Lloyd Rayney was fairly treated and with justice in the case. Although he was pronounced barrister in Western Australia’s court system, he was not treated in any way that someone known to the court system was, meaning he had no advantage in this regard. Furthermore, being from a non-white country, injustice would see him being treated in a lesser way. This shows how the  principle of justice was mostly upheld in this case.

Moreover, the right to a fair trial was also sustained all the time in the case. Just like equality before the law, the right to a fair trial is an important part of our court system. A fair trial refers to several rights and laws such as the burden of proof is on the prosecution, right to silence, right to not give evidence, level of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt), innocent until proved, and many more. This principle of justice is crucial as it allows for transparency throughout the courts so that there are no hiccups in the justice served. In this case, the burden of proof lay on the prosecution and the level of evidence met its standards and was upheld. The accused had exercised his right to not give evidence and so that meant that no guiltiness could not be drawn from that. The hearing was also fair as all evidence was allowed to be presented to the judges and none were withheld. This also further proves how the  principle of justice was supported.

On the other hand, impartiality and independence were not supported in all aspects. Impartiality and independence played a crucial role in the case. This principle of justice means that there should be no bias and prejudice during the case. It is important that it uninterrupted throughout the case as it makes sure that no one person or group of people are focused. The court must remain independent from the government so that the verdicts in court are not influenced by the parliament. In some instances, such as the appeal to be only tried with no jury was allowed. This was because the victim and accused both help important roles in the court system which attracted huge media attention, meaning the jury would be biased before the court case started. For the same reason of both holding high positions, a judge from the Northern Territory was brought in to ensure fairness. There was one major injustice, however. Although there were several suspects, from an early point of the police investigation, a senior sergeant announced that Lloyd Rayney was their prime and only suspect in their investigation. This caused the investigation to be biased and prejudiced against the accused and leading to no proper investigations into other suspects. This goes to show the impartiality and independence of the judiciary were not completely upheld.

Finally, the right to an appeal was also backed up for the duration of the case. The final principle of justice of the right to an appeal means that if either party is unhappy with the verdict, they get the chance for it to be reviewed by three higher judges. This also plays a part in our court system as it allows for unfair and There were not many appeals in the case, however. After the verdict of “Not guilty” was given, the state(prosecution) appealed the decision but however was smothered and dismissed on grounds. The only other appeal was when Lloyd Rayney appealed the $2.8 Million awarded to him as compensation for defamation of being called the “one and only suspect in the case”.

In conclusion, the principles of justice: Equality before the law; Right to a fair trial; Impartiality and independence of the judiciary; Right to an appeal, were all mostly upheld but with one case of injustice. The one stutter of justice was the focus on Lloyd Rayney during the investigation.