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 Lloyd Rayney, 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.
Lloyd Rayney Injustice Essay
The principles of justice are the backbone of the Australian legal system; these principles uphold justice and ensure that all trials heard are fair. These principles include impartial judiciary, presumption of Innocence and right to appeal. Throughout the Lloyd Rayney case, many of these principles were compromised and/or supported. The Lloyd Rayney case involves the murder of Lloyd’s wife Corryn. Her body was found in kings park, in 2007. Lloyd was the main suspect.
Trial by media violates presumption of innocence by spreading information through news/media outlets. This principle is important because, without it, biased facts can be spread into the Australian courts, influencing jury and judges, and therefore compromising presumption of innocence. In the Lloyd Rayney case, we can see trial by media through the statements made early on by police, naming Lloyd as the “Prime and only suspect.” This statement compromised Lloyd’s presumption of innocence by influencing the public view, resulting in him being labelled as guilty before trial. On the other hand, Lloyd’s presumption of innocence was upheld by the lack of a jury, ensuring no bias was present in court. These examples show trial by media both compromised and supported Lloyd’s case. A way around this would be to make police wait until later in the case to announce large statements about suspects to the public.
The impartial judiciary is the principle that makes sure that the judge and jury have no bias to either side. This principle is essential because, without it, judges could convict people without proper evidence. In the Lloyd Rayney case, this principle was supported through the judge being flown in from interstate, ensuring the trial he had no bias from WA media or personal connections. The lack of a jury also supported Lloyd’s case, as a jury could have potentially been influenced by the propaganda that the media was showing online at the time. A jury could have further supported his case by questioning police evidence and seeing through the bias presented by the prosecution although this is not guaranteed, and an opposite stance may have been taken. As demonstrated through these examples the principle of impartial judiciary was upheld through the actions taken against it by the court. A suggestion is to implement the interstate judge into all cases where the accused is by some way, involved with the court system (such as lawyers).
The principle of thorough police investigation ensures that police check every lead and suspect before charging someone with a crime. This principle is highly important because without it, police could take anyone to court without proper evidence. In the Lloyd Rayney case, this principle was supported because police checked all of Lloyd’s house and burial site, and they did a full background check on Lloyd himself, even checking call history, text messages and emails. On the other hand, police ignored other major leads, such as a cigarette butt from a convicted rapist that was found outside the Rayney residence. Police had the other suspect in custody but chose not to get a warrant for the house and after letting him go he fled to the eastern states. Some evidence was suspected to have been tampered with, such as the seed pods found in Corryns hair as they were not found in the initial examination. As demonstrated through the above examples, the principle of thorough police investigation was supported, but also majorly compromised through the case. A way to mitigate this would be to make sure police check every suspect before letting them out of custody. Should any evidence be suspected to have been tampered with, any reasonable doubt the judge or jury has should be expressed and the evidence should be dismissed.
In 2012, Lloyd Rayney was found not guilty of murdering his wife. After the verdict, he decided to sue for defamation because of the unjust statements made by police, labelling him as the “Prime and only suspect.” He felt as though this damaged his reputation and affected his job and day to day life. Lloyd won the defamation case in 2017 and was compensated $2.6 million. In 2018, Lloyd was accused of tapping and reading his wife’s conversations and then lying about it to a magistrate, by the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee. Later on in 2018, Lloyd appealed to get a larger payout from his defamation case, but a date is yet to be set. In 2020, Lloyd was banned from practicing law, as the Supreme Court felt is was very unprofessional to have been reading his wife’s conversations without consent, the fact that he lied in court about it made it seem as though he was untrustworthy. Recently, Lloyd has been involved in another defamation case against forensics investigator Mark Reynolds for stating Lloyd “Got away with murder” in a 2014 science seminar.
Although many principles of justice were supported throughout the duration of the Lloyd Rayney case, a large amount were compromised, leading to the injustice and a defamation lawsuit from Lloyd himself. The main two reasons for this injustice would be police and media, police for not investigating all suspects, and media for spreading false information and propaganda about Mr. Rayney. These factors considered, the principles of justice were compromised throughout Lloyd’s case, and the police and media should have done better as by compromising the case, they took the focus away from finding the murderer and to Lloyd. Without the principles of justice, many more cases like this would be treated unjustly and innocent people would be convicted of crimes they did not commit.