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 John button, 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.
Introduction
In 1965 John Button was blamed for the homicide of his then sweetheart. She was murdered in a Car accident. Mr. Button was seen as liable for this wrongdoing and was condemned to 20 years in jail however simply served five because of appropriate conduct. Altogether court procedures the standards of equity are included. For this situation 3 were undermined and 1 was maintained which caused him to be imprisoned for 5 years.
The right to a fair trial
The first undermined was the right to a fair trial. John button didn’t have a reasonable preliminary since evidence was held from the court. This being the first mishap report filed by the first examiners. On the off chance that this proof has appeared in court the possibly John Button couldn’t ever have been condemned for a wrongdoing that he didn’t carry out.
Right to a reasonable appeal
The second damaged was the right to a reasonable appeal. Mr. Button applied more than 10 appeals over the five years he was in prison. These were denied due to the fact that everybody felt that he was blameworthy. Assuming the court had permitted his case to be renewed, perhaps he wouldn’t have gone to prison for a wrongdoing he didn’t perpetrate and he wouldn’t have had an imprint on his name for over 40 years.
The Jury must be independent and impartial
The last principle threatened was that the jury should be independent and impartial. At John Buttons court hearing, he was undermined with a known chronic Killer at the time Edgar Cooke. The Jury from that second previously thought he was naturally liable because he was considered like Edgar Cooke. On the off chance that the jury had not been prejudice towards Mr button, there may have been an alternate ending to his case.
All are equal before the law
The solitary standard not traded off yet maintained for this situation was all are equivalent under the steady gaze of the law. John Button was not decided on his appearance, sex or race. In any case, the jury or judge couldn’t have cared less about that lone that they thought he was naturally liable. Unfortunately, even though Mr. Button was equivalent under the steady gaze of the law, the appointed authority, the police jury broke different standards of equity.
Conclusion
In 2002 John’s name was at last cleared because he was endorsed an allure and found not guilty. this was simply because a book was distributed clarifying Mr. Buttons case and that book incorporated that unique mishap report. Even though john Button was not in jail at the time he would not like to leave behind an opportunity to demonstrate his innocence. Along these lines, in February of 2002, he was seen not as blameworthy of the homicide of his sweetheart. They discovered one year later that we had been Edgar Cooke who had executed her. They might have found this back in 1965 if the court had followed and maintained the standards of equity. This case is an incredible illustration of how vital these standards are.
Leave a Reply