“Murderer, you are a murderer!” Since 7^th August 2007 Corryn Rayney has been found missing after leaving her boot scooting lesson at 7:30pm. After four days, her body has been found buried in king’s park on the 11^th of august. The police immediately suspects that Lloyd Raney, the ex-husband of Corryn Rayney,  is the murderer of Corryn Rayney, because they believes that he ( The accused ) has financial distributes with Corryn Rayney, which has became the motivation of why the accused  want to murder the deceased(Corryn Rayney). The media has spread tons of news about how Lloyd Raney is responsible for the death of Corryn Rayney. Even though there is no directed evidence that proves the accused has killed the deceased. Public have influenced by media and started to think that the accused is responsible for deceased’s death. At the end, Lloyd Rayney has applied for a fair trial which later has been accepted by the court of western Australia. In the end of the case, the Judge has found Lloyd Rayney not guilty, because of the lack of the evidence from the WA government.  In this case there were a lot of fair and unfair decisions made by both prosecution and the court. So in this essay, It will explain the three principle of justice: presumption of innocence, court has onus to approve if a person is guilty or not and the right to request a fair trial, and how they have been supported and compromised In the Lloyd rainy case .

Firstly, in the Lloyd Rayney case, the presumption of innocence has not been followed because of ‘unreliable hypothesis that has been spread by the police and media. The principle of justice ‘presumption of innocence’ stated that everyone is innocent before the law, until being proven guilty by the court. In the Lloyd Raney case, the WA police has used the sentence ‘prime and only suspect’, to describe the accuse (Lloyd Raney).  This action from the WA police is confusing and irresponsible as an authority. The police has announced there opinions about the case to public without asking permission from the court nor has police have any direct evidence that the accused murdered the deceased. This behaviour has not only broken the presumption of innocence, which is an universal human rights, and it is also shameful, since this statement is posted by the police, which also represents the government. Not only the police are unfair to the accused, the media also did not fulfil their responsibility. Instead of reporting on the case of Corryn Rayney itself, they have twisted the case towards Lloyd Rayney is a Murderer, rather than stay in neutral. This has changed some of public’s opinion which forced the accused to apply for a fair trial. Therefore, the presumption of innocence has been broken by the WA police and media.

secondly, the principle of justice, ‘court has onus to approve if one person is guilty or not’ have stated that the court has responsibility to judge if a person is guilty or not, and it is the only organisation that has the authority to prove one’s guilty. in this case, the WA court has followed this principle of justice by giving a final statement from the judge “I am not satisfied that the accused killed the deceased. I find the accused not guilty of wilful murder and not guilty of manslaughter.” This means that the court of WA has fulfilled their duty. But the WA police has disobeyed this principle by accusing Lloyd Raney as guilty. Even though that police have authority to arrest people, they still don’t have rights to charge people for crime before the dinal sentence from the court. Therefore, the court has followed ‘court has onus to approve if one person is guilty or not’ while the WA police disobeyed it.

The third principle of justice has stated that ‘the accused has rights to request a fair trial.’ The word ‘fair trial’ means a court case without any juries, also known as a ‘judge only trial.’ The reason why this principle of justice is involved in this case is because that the media and police showed their opinions on the case which has suggested that the accused is responsible for the deceased’s death, which changes the way how public think about the accused, Lloyd Rayney. It is also because that the Lloyd Rayney case is the only few cases in WA that involves ‘murdering’, which made this case so famous that everyone already have their own opinion about this case before the trial. This can cause that the jury might decide the decision of the case based on their friends and medias, instead of the evidence that has been presented in the court. Therefore, the accused, Lloyd Rayney, has requested a fair trial because of all the opinions that has spread by the police and medias is disadvantageous to him. The court has also aware the public’s opinion, so they accepted the fair trial which requested by the accused. In this principle of justice, the court and accused both followed right to request for a fair trial.

In conclusion, it is easy to tell, that some of the principle of justice has been broken through the Lloyd Rayney case. Lloyd Rayney, (the accused) has been charged as ‘guilty’ by the WA police, which did not follow the presumption of innocence. The police and media also spread their opinions to the public, which break the principle, ‘court has onus to approve if one’s guilty or not.’ But the court of WA did fulfilled their responsibility by found the accused not guilty. And lastly, the court and accused has both followed the right to request a fair trial, since the accused requested a fair trial and the court accepted it. Therefore, in the Lloyd Raney case, some principle of justice have been followed and the others did not.

Explaination.

I have improved my version by putting more evidence and explanation into my essay. In my previous version, i wrote the entire essay based on what i think. This means that my previous version is super subjective. This can cause a lot of problem, such as lack of evidence, or even change some facts. So in this version, i have tried to write my essay based on evidence, instead of purely on what i think about the case.