Bald man in red Asics T-shirt sitting down next to two teen girls with long brown hair
After more than 12 years of wrongful imprisonment, Scott Austic has a shattered life to rebuild.

The Australian Legal System incorporates several principles of justice, such as the presumption of innocence, high-quality evidence, and the right to a reasonable appeal. These principles ensure that all people are treated equally under the law. By abiding by these, the police, courts, and other authorities ensure that justice is upheld in an effective, ethical, and impartial manner. The Scott Austic case demonstrates how several principles were both upheld and compromised. In 2007, young and out-going Noongar woman, Stacey Thorne, was tragically stabbed on a neighbour’s front lawn. Scott Austic, casual lover and father of Stacey’s unborn child was charged with wilful murder and was given a life sentence in 2009. Wrongfully imprisoned, Scott was later acquitted after it was revealed that incriminating evidence had been planted. The 14-year ordeal that proceeded this fateful night reveals the strengths and flaws of the Australian Legal System.

To ensure that a verdict is based on accurate information, presented evidence needs to be of high quality. Without evidence that is relevant and reliable, an unjust outcome will be reached. In the Scott Austic case, this principle was heavily compromised and justice was not upheld. In 2009, Scott Austic was found guilty of wilful murder and he spent more than a decade behind bars as a result of planted evidence. Among the planted evidence was a cigarette packet smeared with blood, a drink can, a bloodied folding knife, and burnt clothing.

Evidence
Digital evidence of the Jim Bean drink can and the folding knife

Initially, the clothes were said to have been burnt to conceal evidence. However, it was discovered that Scott had not lied about his clothing, and the burnt clothes were the remains of his roommates starting winter fires. The police also fabricated a motive – that Scott Austic did not want Stacey Thorne to have his child. This was based on a message that Scott had sent 10 days prior, detailing how “he would do anything for her [Stacey] to not have the child.”

A comparison of the video and photo footage shows the mysterious appearance of the cigarette packet.

In November 2020, a retrial was ordered after concerns about the integrity of the evidence. The police continually affirmed the unlikely assertion that the evidence had been missed in the first round of inspections. At the retrial, further inspection of the bloodied folding knife revealed that it was implausible that the weapon had caused the deep wounds suffered by Stacey. The weapon in question was found in a paddock between the homes, despite being absent previously, and Scott’s DNA was not present on it; only Stacey’s blood. The defence also claimed that the cigarette packet was only visible in digital evidence that was taken after original video footage from the day of the murder. This inconsistency suggests that it was placed deliberately, to make Scott Austic seem guilty. Moreover, as it was a police protected area, it is highly likely to be the police who tampered with the evidence (although this is unproven). The Jim Bean drink was found post investigation by an officer not part of the initial search team. Scott’s defence team also argued that he could not have been the killer, as he was at home at the time of her death. This disregard for high-quality evidence resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of an innocent man.

Another such principle of justice in the Scott Austic case was the presumption of innocence. From the moment someone is charged (with a crime), to the moment they are tried or found guilty, they should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. The same applies to the granting of bail unless there is a legitimate concern, such as being a threat to the community. This vital principle allows each person to receive a fair, unbiased investigation and trial. In the absence of this, a suspect may be wrongfully incriminated and sentenced, leading to the true offender not receiving justice. The Scott Austic case contained a heavy breach. The police failed to thoroughly investigate other potential suspects as they focused on the one they thought to be responsible, building a case around them. Since they were convinced that they “had their man”, the investigation was wrapped up within a week (a short time for a murder investigation). As stated by Scott Austic’s barrister, David Edwardson (QC), this failure to observe the presumption of innocence, ” … laid the foundation for the conduct that ultimately condemned him”. This refers to the planting of evidence, (most likely by the police), which relates to the presumption of innocence as it shows how they desired for Scott Austic to be convicted and found guilty. This resulted in an unjust sentence. However, after his conviction was quashed, Scott Austic was granted bail prior to his retrial. This was not a breach. However, collectively, the presumption of innocence was heavily compromised in this case.

Unlike the negligence to uphold the presumption of innocence and right to high-quality evidence, the right to a reasonable appeal was successfully upheld. This principle of justice allows parties that are unsatisfied with the outcome of their case, or those wishing for a case review, to lodge an appeal on reasonable grounds. The case will then be reviewed by a higher court, to quash the sentence, be acquitted or otherwise alter the outcome. The right to a reasonable appeal can eliminate any potential errors or bias that occurred in the first hearing and it attempts to ensure that the court arrives at a just decision for all parties. In 2010, Scott Austic submitted an appeal, which was denied. Although refused, this was not a violation, as the inquiry for appeal was heard. Following a failed investigation in 2011, a further petition was submitted and the case was referred to the Court of Appeal after several discrepancies (in evidence) were found. Finally, in 2019, the court of Criminal Appeal quashed his convictions and ordered a retrial, which was won in May 2020. This led to the 2020 retrial in the Supreme Court, where the jury only needed a few hours to reach a verdict of not guilty. The endorsement and continued support of the right to reasonable appeal allowed Scott Austic to be justly acquitted after more than 12 years of imprisonment. 

 As part of the Australian Legal System, many basic principles of justice are embodied, including the presumption of innocence, high-quality evidence, and reasonable appeal rights. These are crucial, as, under these principles, everyone is treated equally, with access to the legal system. As long as these are adhered to, the authorities ensure the effective, ethical, and impartial administration of justice. Collectively, the Scott Austic case was deeply unfair. Several principles were heavily compromised to the extent that an innocent man was imprisoned for over a decade for a crime he did not commit. It also caused heartbreak and sorrow for each of the families involved, with unending grief and years of relationships to mend. While it gradually became fairer towards the defendant- Scott Austic, the victim’s family were unable to find closure as no one was held responsible for Stacey Thorne’s death, and consequently, the family and wider society have less faith in the workings of the legal system.