Our Australian legal system is based on the “principles of justice” which are aimed to ensure everyone equality before the law. There are currently four principles of justice, the first one is, “all individuals are equal before the law.” This principle of justice is to ensure everyone, regardless of their race, background, gender, or mental capacity, to still be treated equally when dealing with the legal system, this includes police, authorities, or any other legal authorities. To make sure this is followed, there are numbers of laws made so people can be treated fairly and equally when being questioned by the police. For example, there is the right to remain silent, when you are warned prior to questioning. Like “anything they do or say may be used against them in a court of law.” The second principle of justice is “Individuals have the right to have a fair hearing.” This is to ensure people won’t be accused wrongly and to make sure no matter how big a crime you got accused of you would still have a fair hearing. There are different rights to achieve this, like public trial, presumption of innocence, right to have a lawyer, defendant told of charge and more. The third principle of justice is the judiciary is independent and impartial. What this actually means, is that courts are distanced from the elected parliament and government which means judges and magistrates are free to make decisions without anyone trying to change their minds. Because of this independent judiciary, it means no one, not even the government is above the law. Having an unbiased judge also means one party won’t have an advantage over another. Judges make sure evidence and procedure rules are being followed to both parties, and they would both have an equal chance to show their side. The fourth and last principle of justice is “individuals have the right to have a reasonable appeal.” This is to allow people that aren’t satisfied with their case to have the right to appeal. To have the right to appeal, a party must show that their trial could have been biased. Such as if a judge didn’t follow the rules of evidence or if the procedure wasn’t completely followed. Throughout John Button’s case, it is clear that some of these principles of justice were followed while some were not.
On the 10th of February in 1963, (John Button’s birthday), John Button and his girlfriend (Rosemary Anderson) were playing cards. After having a huge fight, Rosemary decided to walk home. John Button tried convincing her to drive her home as it was dark and night-time. Even after seeing her go behind the train subway tracks, Button still decided to wait for her in his car thinking she might change her mind. A few minutes later, John decided to drive though, and to his horror, he saw her lying on her back on the sand next to the road. She was fatally injured so John quickly carried her to his car and drove her to the doctor’s surgery. Rosemary Anderson never recovered consciousness and died shortly after. What happened that night was when Anderson was walking in Shenton Park, an insane, psycho serial killer called “Eric Edgar Cooke,” was looking for a victim to run over. Seeing Anderson, he immediately decided she would be his victim and ran her over 40 miles per hour. She got flipped from the front of the car and landed heavily on the sand. Seeing as there was no one else to blame, the police took Button for questioning and at that time, Button wasn’t in a real state of mind as he was still grieving and blaming himself for Anderson’s death. The police even physically assaulted him when trying to get a confession out of him. Wanting to go home and get it over with, Button signed a confession and got sentenced for man slaughtering for 10 years in Fremantle prison hard labour. In 1968, Button got released for parole and finally got justice 39 years later when proved innocent for killing Anderson with the help of Estell Blackburn and other journalists.
As seen in Button’s case, there are already multiple principles of justice broken. One of the most important principles of justice in Button’s case would be “All individuals are equal before the law.” There was little of this supported in the case while as there was more of this not followed in the case. Instead of allowing Button to remain silent, the police took him to questioning, and according to Button “this was a side to the police I’ve never seen before,” the police kept yelling and repeating that he did it, and physically abused him including punching his stomach to try getting a confession out of him. This went on for hours until Button reached his limit. He was already upset, blaming himself and wasn’t in a real state of mind due to Rosemary’s death. Wanting to go home, John signed a confession. This leads onto the second principle of justice, Individuals have the right to a fair hearing. There is so much evidence holding against this principle of justice that it is defiant that this principle of justice wasn’t upheld. Such as “presumption of innocence.” Like the right to remain silent, the police already assumed Button as guilty as so much that kept interrogating him for hours certain that he did the crime even though there wasn’t any signs of blood, fabric, or hair on Buttons car. Just a bump he made in an accident a month ago, but it still shouldn’t be enough evidence that Button did the crime.
The third principle of justice “The judiciary is independent and impartial” was extremely clear that it wasn’t followed. The other party, which is the prosecutor had a much bigger advantage as they kept witnesses from talking and used Button’s confession as evidence. “Rosemary was walking on the left-hand edge of the road close to the edge of bitumen. Before I realised what has happened, I had hit her with the left-hand side of the front of my car. When I hit her, I felt a large crunch and carried her a few yards on the front of my vehicle.” This confession was forced and made up, which the police wasn’t allowed to do. The police used this statement as a evidence in court. Because of this confession, Button barely escaped a death sentence which changed to a man slaughter. Also unknown to the public, the detectives also blackmailed the guy that examined Buttons vehicle. After the guy examined the vehicle thoroughly, he told the two detectives that there was no way Button’s car could have hit a person. Instead of listening to him, the detectives kept insisting that it has, and even threatened him with his job. Years later, the same car man has retired long ago and told journalists this as evidence to help Button. This was part of the evidence that helped Button be proven innocent of man slaughter. The judge also didn’t follow the rules of evidence and procedures, as a follow-up to the “presumption of innocence,” a small bump on Buttons car and no traces of hair, blood, or fabric is clearly not enough evidence to charge someone guilty of man slaughter.
The fourth and final principle of justice, “individuals have the right to a reasonable appeal,” did come up both ways. It was both followed and not followed, although it leaned more towards right. When Eric Edgar Cooke, (the serial killer that killed Rosemary Anderson and 8 other victims) publicly announced that he was the one that killed Rosemary Anderson before his hanging, Button immediately saw this as a chance to file for an appeal. Cooke described the night of the incident in extreme detail, things only the murder should know. Such as where he found the car he stole to run over Anderson, where he saw here walking across the road, where he hit her, and where he abandoned the car. Despite all this evidence, Button’s appeal was denied even though the prosecutor had very little evidence. This shows that the appeal wasn’t reasonable, even if Cooke’s confession wasn’t enough to be proof that he did the crime, the prosecutor definitely didn’t have enough evidence either, and Button should have remained innocent, due to the “presumption of innocence.”
Although Button’s case was unfair and unjustified in so many ways, there were some principles of justice that remained upheld. In the first principle of justice, “all individuals are equal before the law,” the jury remained impartial. In the trial, the jury announced, “not guilty,” leaving Button floored with relief. However, the jury made a mistake, and the judge allowed the jury to correct his mistake and the jury announced “guilty”, which is completely allowed and fair. Button’s trial was also a public trial, so everyone was able to see Button’s case. In Button’s trial, he was also able to have a character witness, which was his ballroom dancing teacher speaking how calm and an eager student Button was. Although this didn’t really help in the trial, Button was still allowed a character witness. When the news of Cooke’s confession of killing Rosemary Anderson reached Fremantle prison, Button was able to file for an appeal even though it got denied.
After all the years of misjustice and suffering, John Button was finally able to be proved innocent. With the help of Estell Blackburn who spent eight years of her life hunting the story about Eric Edgar Cooke, she found appeal papers referred to what happen the night Rosemary Anderson died that only someone who was there should know. Another journalist, “Bread Christian” was also looking at the case and helped by using crash dummies. With the very detailed explanation Cooke gave, he was able to use that information to try using crash dummies. Estell Blackburn was also the very person that was able to find the person that examined Button’s vehicle. With all this evidence, it was the key to unlocking the case. Because of Button’s miscarriage of justice, he received an ex-granita payment of $400,000, and received more than $3 million for his miscarriage of justice. Button’s response to this was unsatisfied. “Of the money I received in 2002, there’s only $12,000 left. Most of it has gone on my ongoing medical bills.” This case was certainly unfortunate and showed a clear understanding of the ways the principles of justice wasn’t followed. In the future, hopefully society sees Button’s case as an example of miscarriage of justice and the principles of justice will be followed more thoroughly.
