Principles of Justice
One of the activities in our HASS class was to write an essay about Principles of Justice and how they were supported/violated in a case from recent history that we chose.
The case that I chose was about Gene Gibson: during 2010, on the outskirts of Broome, a twenty one year old man called Josh Warneke was bashed to death. I chose the case of Gene Gibson because it was obvious that a massive injustice had occurred. As a member of Aboriginal society myself, I have seen injustices in Carnarvon, and think that they should receive more attention.
Gene Gibson’s case illustrates how easy it is for a disadvantaged and alienated person of any race to be stigmatised and persecuted.
Gene Gibson
During 2010, on the outskirts of Broome, 21 year old man, Josh Warneke was bashed to death. Fast forward two years, Gene Gibson was arrested on suspicion of murdering Warneke. After being tried and found guilty, Gibson was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. However, his trial was laced with imperfections and injustice. Several of the principles of justice were not upheld. The principles of justice are a set of key beliefs that are designed to protect the rights of all Australian citizens. The principles include the right to a fair trial, equality before the law, right to an independent and unbiased judiciary, right to reasonable appeal and the presumption of innocence.
Gene Gibson is an Aboriginal Australian from the town of Kwirrakurra, on the border of the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Gibson’s first language is his tribal language, Pintupi, and English is either his 2nd or 3rd language. In addition to this, he has a mental impairment. Together, these placed him at a major disadvantage. Furthermore, he was unaware of the court proceedings.
The first principle of justice that was violated was his right to a fair trial. This means that support should be given to equalize those who are disadvantaged by our legal system. Gibson was provided with a lawyer, but he spoke close to no English, and he was not provided with an interpreter for most of his trial. To make his trial even more fair, he would have needed a person to help with his mental impairment, as well as an interpreter. The interpreter needed to be highly skilled, to be able to work with the legal system, and with Gene Gibson’s intellectual and educational disadvantage.
Another major principle is equality before the law. Equality before the law states that individuals are treated equally regardless of their personal circumstances or background. During his trial, Gibson was not treated equally, in the sense that he was not provided with an interpreter, and a person to help with his cognitive impairment. He was an unsophisticated, illiterate man from a remote community with no understanding of the legal process. He was not given the support needed to make him equal with others.
The third principle that was violated was his right to an unbiased and independent judiciary. This is in place to prevent corruption and dishonesty, and abuse of the legal system. Hearsay evidence is not acceptable; the vital evidence from Gene Gibson’s case was based on hearsay evidence, which is a form of corruption. His lawyer advised him to plead guilty, reasoning he would get a lighter sentence than pleading innocent and being found guilty. This means that the lawyer colluded with the prosecution and thus the court system was neither independent nor unbiased.
The fourth principle is the right to reasonable appeal. This allows the defendant to have their case reviewed by a higher court system if they are unhappy/ unsatisfied with the final result. The only reason Gibson was released early is because the mother of Josh Warneke, Ingrid Bishop, took the case to the CCC ( Crime and Corruption Commission). Gibson was not offered the right to appeal.
Finally, an important principle is the presumption of innocence. Presumption of innocence allows people to be innocent until proven guilty. Police found two women who said they had seen Gibson commit the murder. The police immediately accepted it, and they only investigated him. They presumed that he was guilty rather than innocent, therefore violating his presumption of innocence.
Even before the trial had begun, his guilt was presumed by police. They accepted hearsay evidence, which is a form of corruption, and he was the only person investigated. The imbalance of power between Gibson and the police was immense, and a person in his situation would be likely to agree with the police out of fear. Additionally, he was involved in a series of flawed police interviews, where no interpreter was present at most times, and none of the interviews were taped.
This court case could have easily been made much fairer. An easy way to do this would be to have recorded all the interviews, ensuring that there was an interpreter present at all interviews. Another way is to have police trained to work with people like Gene Gibson, and finally, have more indigenous people involved in law.
To conclude, Gene Gibson was wrongly accused, convicted and imprisoned by the Australian legal system. Ironically, it took the mother of the victim to free him from prison.
