In the Gene Gibson case, there were times when the principles of justice were supported and times when they were compromised. This essay will highlight some of the principles of justice, these include all individuals are equal before the law, individuals having the right to an unbiased trial, the judiciary being independent and impartial, and individuals having the right to a reasonable appeal. This essay will follow these principles of justice and outline how they were compromised.

Mr. Gibson is an Aboriginal man who spent 5 years in prison after pleading guilty to the manslaughter of Joshua Warneke. The supreme court squashed Gene’s manslaughter conviction because he suffered from the fault of the Justice system in Western Australia. The reason for this is that he did not have the language skills or intelligence to understand the court’s legal system and what was going on during the trial. This case did not represent the principles of justice where everyone is equal before the law and an unbiased trial. These two principles weren’t followed to the standard that every single Australian should be given. Mr. Gibson was mistreated in the courts and throughout the trial because he was an Aboriginal man that couldn’t speak English to the required level. 

Mr. Gibson was convicted in 2014 to a 7 and half-year prison sentence after saying that he caused Mr. Warneke’s death. Josh Warneke’s body was found on the side of an old Broome Road in 2010. After leaving a nightclub in February, Warneke’s body was found with head injuries. Mr. Gibson, who speaks limited English, and his first language is the traditional desert language of Pintupi, argued that he did not understand the court process, or the instructions translated to him. In this investigation, they didn’t allow Mr. Gibson the right to silence. He said after this whole event was over, he felt the police weren’t on his side and that there were two witnesses that came forward, telling him that he was the killer and was better off admitting he did it, Gibson said that he felt the two women that came forward were paid by police to say that or are just lying in general. Gibson in this case didn’t go for bail mostly because a manslaughter case wouldn’t be cheap so Gibson didn’t want to pay the amount of money it would have taken to get out of jail. In this instance, they did give him the right to bail.

Gene Gibson was convicted in 2014 but the real crime happened in 2010. He was cleared of his 7-and-a-half-year sentence in 2017 spending 4.67 years in prison. He testified to court through an interpreter that “he did not kill Mr. Warneke and that police did not hear his story”. The court also heard he was advised to plead guilty after being told in his witness statement that if he did, the would the two guilty witnesses drop. In this case, there was some doubt that he wasn’t innocent, but the justice system didn’t follow the necessary precautions in breaking down that evidence and winning the case. In 2016, Mr. Gibson appealed, he sought an appeal to withdraw his guilty plea because he did not understand what he was doing. Warneke’s mother didn’t believe Mr. Gibson was guilty, and she sided with him. Gibson’s appeal was supported by expert witness evidence that due to his limited knowledge of English, coupled with his intellectual disability, he was unable to sensibly understand the consequences of his guilty plea. This case allowed Mr. Gibson to appeal his conviction. Warneke’s mother stated that she didn’t believe that he was guilty and that it was a new chapter in Mr. Gibson’s life. She said “The appeal process has highlighted numerous deficiencies and incompetence in how Aboriginal Legal Services managed Gene’s case” overall being supported. The right to an appeal is one of the biggest rights to have because without it people in the same situation could be serving life sentences all because of a miscarriage of justice.

In this case, you can see that there were a few times that the principles of justice weren’t followed, and there were others when they were. I think that in this case there were times where it should have been better, and the court should have seen that but others where did well going on the evidence they had. In this case, Gene Gibson had the right to an appeal and he did now know a few more rules about the Australian Legal System he knew what would be going on and what to do. Overall, this case was hard to learn and study not knowing what site to go off but when I was able to find the right one that told what really happened, I was able to follow that. Mr.

Gibson’s case was rear and hasn’t happened that many times where they have gotten to the point of being imprisoned.