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 Gene Gibson 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.
When we are annualizing a case, we as individuals need to make sure we are looking at every aspect of this case, including the principles of justice. How exactly do we know justice has been upheld? My chosen case is on Gene Gibson, who was wrongfully convicted of the murder of a 21-year-old names Josh Warneke’s in Broome, February 2010. Through all my research of this case, I have discovered many reasons why justice was not upheld, nor given to Gene.
One of the many reasons this case was conducted incorrectly, was that the principle of reliable evidence was not correctly upheld in the case. When looking at a certain case, reliable evidence is an important procedure that detectives use to assure that all evidence discovered is reliable and believable. In Gene Gibson’s case, there are many reasons why this principle had lacked. In one example, police had said that the way Josh was murdered as he had been struck by a sharp object in the head, fracturing his skull.
The story Gene had told police is that he hit Josh with a rock as he drove past him one night, but his statement did not match with the forensic evidence. Police tried again, trying to get an accurate statement to match the forensics. Gene had then said he hit him with a pole. This story had now match with forensics, helping the polices story of Gene murdering Josh more convincing. One way the reasoning for Gene’s sentence could improve is that they have Gene properly interviewed with detectives that are not trying to have their story matched to the crime.
Another way this case was not properly upheld, was the lack of justice Gene had received. The law states that every individual is before the law, no matter race, sex, or mental capacity. In this instant, English was not Gene’s first language, so when police visited him in 2010 for a witness statement, he was not provided with a translator, making it hard for him to properly understand the case. Gene also had a disability, making it hard for him to comprehend many words. On top of this, Gene was an indigenous man from a rural town, not being able to access many resources for him to understand this case. As you can see with this evidence I have found, Gene was proven to be found behind the law, giving him a huge disadvantage in the case, but this leaves us with room for many improvements that can help prevent this from happening in the future. One way this mistake could have been prevented is to make sure that during the investigation, the detectives could tell Gene the real reason why they are interviewing and for them to properly understand his mental capacity before accusing him of the murder.
Evaluating how justice was served in this case, one way the case was supported was how the judiciary is dependant and impartial. When he was charged with the murder in August 2010, his trial was fair due to the fact that the judge had used the forensic evidence he had received from police and forensics and how he was unbiased towards Gene. The jury was as well unbiased as this case was not completely biased in the media, nor was it hugely broadcasted, but there is always room for improvement. The evidence the police had given the court could have been properly looked over first and analysed by professional detectives and been looked at by forensics to help identify the true events while the investigation was in progress.
One of the very last reasons Gene was not properly treated with proper justice, was the lack of fair legal representation he has received. One of the most important parts of a case trial is making sure when the individual is being questioned or prosecuted that they can have a fair trial to not put anyone else at a disadvantage in a case. When police had first started interviewing Gene as a suspect instead of a witness, he was not received a lawyer, neither were there many opportunities to access one in his rural town, as it was a 2-day drive from Broome. When finally receiving one, Gene’s lawyer had told the police Gene wanted to discontinue the case, the police ignored his request and continued with the investigation, still with Gene not properly understanding the case. An example of how this could improve is for Gene to have the right legal representation before the police could have assumed this sentence. When starting with the interview, the police could have also ask Gene if he had any requests with the case or find out if Gene had any medical issues that could have had Gene at a disadvantage, before assuming he had murdered someone just because he might not have known anything about this certain case.
To conclude, the amount of fair justice Gene had received was very limited throughout the whole investigation as well as the polices conduct throughout the investigation being lazy and incompetent, with the principles of justice not being correctly enforced throughout this investigation. Gene had spent a total of 5 years behind bars before he was properly released on the 18th of April 2017. Gene had received around $1.3 million dollar compensation for wrongfully being accused of the murder of Josh Warnekes, taking the court around 7 minutes to evaluate his sentence of not guilty. Sadly, the murder of Josh Warnekes still remains a mystery to this day with police not having any evidence on how he was murdered.