The principles of justice are a set of key beliefs that protect the rights of all Australian citizens when dealing with the legal system and to ensure that procedures generate reliable unbiased results. Undermining these principles can have devastating consequences as shown in the Gene Gibson case. In this case, there were a number of principles that were compromised however some that were upheld. Equality before the law, right to a reasonable appeal and the right to understand the legal system are all important principles which were involved in this case.

Equality before the law means that everyone is given the resources that they need to understand, everyone should have an equal playing field when dealing with the law. This may mean providing an interpreter for someone who speaks limited English or has a hearing impairment so that they can understand what is happening during the process. In the Gene Gibson case this principle was compromised. Gene had a number of disadvantages which led to his imprisonment. Gene is from a remote community near Broome. Gene spoke very little English and was cognitively impaired. Gene was 18 when he was considered a person of interest for the murder of Josh Warneke. During the interviewing process a number of his rights were violated. Gene was first interviewed as a witness and then during the same interview was interviewed as a suspect. This breaches his rights because he was not warned about his right to remain silent or his right to a lawyer. It’s important that Gene is warned about these rights so that he doesn’t incriminate himself because he thinks he has to say something or hasn’t been given advice from a lawyer. Because of Gene’s cognitive impairment he was susceptible to suggestion. This means that he was more likely to give an answer that he thought the police would accept. During an interview, the police asked gene how he murdered Josh. Gene provided the answer that he hit him with a car, but that didn’t match what the police had determined the cause of death was, so Gene kept answering until he got the right murder weapon. To prevent this it would have been crucial for a mental health professional who understood genes condition to be present at all interviews. Compromising this principle meant that Gene was at a huge disadvantage.

The right to an appeal is a principle of justice that was upheld in this case. The right to an appeal means that an individual can appeal their case to a higher court on the grounds that there has been; an error of fact, an error of law or a gross miscarriage of justice. This is a critical principle because (as we know with the Gene Gibson case) Western Australia’s legal system isn’t perfect, and mistakes can be made. When Gene’s appeal was granted in 2017 his sentence was unanimously quashed because it was ruled that all police interviews were inadmissible due to a breach of the criminal investigation act.  Gene was paid compensation for the time that he spent in jail. Without the right to an appeal, it was likely that Gene would’ve spent all 7 ½ years of his sentence in jail.

The right to understand the legal system means that all individuals dealing with the legal system deserve to know how it works  and be provided with the resources to understand it. This principle was somewhat upheld but mostly compromised in the Gene Gibson case. At the early stages of the interviewing process, Gene was not provided with a lawyer, an interpreter or a mental health professional. Gene not being provided with a lawyer left Gene at 18 years old to deal with the complex legal system by himself. When he eventually was provided with legal representation he was informed that by pleading guilty at the start of the trial he would receive a “small time” sentence whereas by pleading not guilty he would receive a “big time sentence”. If Gene had understood the legal system and the way it works, Gene may have realised that the police had very little evidence and they were relying on his confession to lead to his conviction. It is important that all individuals understand or are equipped with the resources to understand how a legal system works and what its consequences are.

Different principles in the Gene Gibson case were both supported and compromised including but not limited to; equality before the law, the right to a reasonable appeal and the right to understand the legal system. These principles help keep our legal system fair and just and prevent our system from being entirely corrupt. These principles being upheld are vital to keep innocent people out of jail and without them people like Gene Gibson might have falsely remained in prison for the remainder of his sentence.