Several principles are designed to keep the legal system fair and equal for everyone no matter their mental or physical traits. These principles are important because, without them, no rights would be protected and court cases would be heavily biased and almost impossible for the accused to win. Principals like the presumption of innocence, which states that the accused is presumed innocent and is not treated as a criminal, lets defendants and the accused present their cases and have a more fair trial. Many trials suffer from too much media coverage, painting a tainted image of the accused, leading to an unfair verdict and ultimately an unfair sentence. Another principle of justice, which is arguably the most important principle of justice, is the right to a fair hearing/trial. This principle includes the sub-principle that all offenders of the law have the right to an impartial jury. There are many cases where these principles of justice are overlooked and ignored, leading to some of the most popular cases in history. The Azaria/Lindy Chamberlain case is one of these rare cases where some principles of justice like the presumption of innocence and the right to an unbiased jury are ignored by investigators.

A Quick Summary

On the night of the 17th of August 1980, Azaria Chamberlain was eaten alive by a dingo, as the Chamberlain family and many others were camping in Uluru. Lindy and Micheal Chamberlain(her parents) were tried for murder and spent 3 years in prison. Even though there was “no body, no evidence of motive and no eyewitness evidence that even vaguely incriminated the Chamberlains”, which were words said after her trial with the Royal Commission. This wrongful verdict and sentence were because of the violations of multiple principles of justice.

The Violation of the Principles of Justice

The principle of the presumption of innocence was violated in the Lindy Chamberlain case. The Lindy Chamberlain case arose when Azaria Chamberlain disappeared from her tent on the night of August 17th, 1980. There was an abnormal amount of blood in the tent, the carry basket she was sleeping in, and next to dingo tracks(which were near the carry basket). From this information alone, most people would come to the conclusion that Azaria Chamberlain was taken and eaten by dingoes, but this isn’t the conclusion the NT police came to as they were so convinced that Lindy Chamberlain killed her own daughter that they overstepped one of the key principles of justice. The presumption of innocence was violated as some cops didn’t believe that Azaria was eaten by dingoes and used the media to spread these false rumours about Lindy. Eight months after these tragic events took place, “Operation Ochre” took place and the Chamberlains’ house was searched and many items were taken “for further inspection” by police. All the eyewitness accounts of the case were also being interrogated. When the witnesses started talking about a dingo, the police made it clear that ‘they did not want to hear anything about a dingo’, which made it clear what the agenda was. After all of these accounts, it was painfully obvious that Lindy Chamberlain was being treated like a criminal before she was proven guilty which shows the corruption of the NT police force.

What the Media Did to the Case

Another thing done wrong in the Lindy Chamberlain case was the excessive amount of media coverage the case had. The case was broadcasted all over Australia, making it almost impossible to find an unbiased jury. The public was very mixed about Lindy Chamberlain because of the media’s relentless slander and jokes about her, she was particularly antagonised for not acting like a “stereotypical” grieving mother. Allegations made against Lindy Chamberlain said that the church she went to was a part of a cult that killed infants. Other silly rumours such as: Azaria means “sacrifice in the wilderness”(it means “helped by God”) and she was even claimed to be a witch. These examples demonstrate that the jury was biased, violating the principle of the right to a fair trial.

The quality of Evidence in the Trial

The principle of high-quality evidence was violated in this case. Most of the evidence against Lindy Chamberlain was overturned by the Royal Commission, this shows that the evidence provided in this case was not of high quality. This is probably because the police told witnesses that they didn’t want to hear anything about dingoes because this was a murder investigation, which lead to false evidence being created. Flawed forensic evidence was also used in the Lindy Chamberlain case as a NSW forensic lab technician found what she claimed to be foetal blood all over the car and on the zipper of the camera bag that was said to have had Azaria Chamberlains’ body in it. This evidence was still used against Lindy Chamberlain even though the car had been searched thoroughly by a police officer 18 months ago, who had reported no signs of blood in the car. The crown also said that the cuts found on Azaria’s clothing could not be made by a dingo and could only be made with scissors, which is completely false and is an incredibly weak piece of evidence.