Category: Projects

Attached is the PowerPoint I made as a reflection for our engineering challenge.

While our legal system tries to prevail justice, these standards aren’t always met. Lloyd Rayney was a 44 year old WA Barrister, when he was charged of the wilful murder of his wife. After being sent to court for trial, Mr Rayney was sentenced not guilty by the retired NT Judge Brian Martin. In this case, some of the injustices include, Equal Treatment before the law, impartial judge and Jury, and Burden of Standard and Proof. However, the principle of Justice met was Independence of Courts. This essay will explain in detail that Mr Rayney’s verdict was accurate, and that his 2.26 million dollar defamation claim was rightfully earned.

On August 7 2007, Mrs Corryn Rayney was reported missing after her weekly boot scooting class in Bentley. A few days later, police find her bloody car parked outside of Kings Park, a few hundred metres from the family home. Police say they followed an oil leak coming from the car to find her body. With no evidence guaranteeing anyone’s guilt, police name Mr Rayney “the prime and only suspect.” Police then go on to speak publicly about the case through media, suggesting Rayney’s guilt. After his trial, retired NT judge Brian Martin says the case lacks ‘logic and crucial evidence’. Mr Rayney’s verdict was approved not guilty by the judge. 4 years later, Mr Rayney wins 2.26 million dollars of defamation claims.

Burden of Standard and Proof is about using forensic, oral and physical evidence to be certain of an individual’s guilt. This is important as it is not enough in a trial to assume someone’s guilt, or say someone is probably guilty. In Mr Rayney’s case, no evidence was used to support Mr Rayney’s guilt. The only evidence the police presented was that Lloyd Rayney was probably guilty because the couple had a crippling marriage. This is not enough, as saying the Rayney’s had a crippling marriage does not say in any way, shape or form of evidence that Mr Rayney is guilty.

Equal treatment before the law means having no discrimination (race, gender, mental ability etc.) a right to safety in investigations and trial, a right to privacy, and a right to all police evidence. This is important because every individual deserves a right to fairness, and if they don’t have all police evidence or a right to privacy, the trial can be biased to them. In Mr Rayney’s case, the police did not use all evidence during investigations and trial, and did not keep his case prive, after expressing Mr Rayney’s guilt through media. Despite his case being bias in multiple ways towards him, he verdict was not guilty.

Impartial Judge and Jury is about having no prejudice against an individual prior to their trial. This is important because being bias can lead to an unfair sentencing, despite evidence proving someone’s innocence. In this case, police spoke publicly about the case, making it inevitably impossible for any WA Judge or Jury to be unbiased, as he was a well known part of the WA barrister legal team. As a result, Mr Rayney was granted a juryless trial and retired Northern Territory Judge Brian Martin.

Independence of Courts is about having a fair judge being the referee between the two sides, putting the law before their personal thoughts, and only making a decision based on their opinion from the evidence provided. In this case, because the bias pointed towards Mr Rayney’s guilt, he won the right to have a Northern Territory Judge (Brian Martin), who had not prejudice against Mr Rayney. He only acted based on his opinion from the hearing, from which he declared Mr Rayney not-guilty.

In summary, while our legal system aims for 100% fairness using the principles of justice in every person in every case, justice is not always achieved. In Mr Rayney’s case the main faults included were; Equal treatment before the law: A monumental lack of privacy (due to the police reaching out to the media to suggest Mr Rayney’s guilt), and Burden of Standard and Proof (a lack of evidence provided by the police). The final outcome has shown that justice isn’t always found right away. It took Mr Rayney 4 years to receive the defamation claims, and for his final verdict to deliver.