During Term 4 science, this year we had the challenge of making a tower out of spaghetti and blue tack. The criteria that we had to follow was, the tower had to be a minimum of 60cm tall, and fits within a 30x30cm base. We have $60 to spend and the cost of the materials was $1 per 10cm of spaghetti and $1 per 1g of blue tack. We were given this challenge in teams of 3 (Simba, Mitchell and I). The challenge was to build an earthquake-resistant building using the materials provided. We were given 3 weeks to plan, design and build our 2 prototypes.
For our engineering challenge, we built 2 prototypes. The first one was very successful and could withstand the earthquake simulator, our first prototype was 61cm tall and had a 15x15cm base. We spent $44.5 on spaghetti and 15.5 on blue tack, which adds up to exactly $60. The simulator moved our structure, left and right, forward and back and up and down for about 30 seconds. Our 1st model was unphased and withstood all the movement. No changes to this model were necessary at all. For prototype 2, unfortunately, we wasted our class time and had to improvise and create a simple and quick design to finish. With very little time left in this challenge we built a very simple structure, it was placed on the simulator for 30 seconds and although it was doing well on the simulator, towards the end it began to tip over. My group could have improved on our time management. Structure 1 was far more successful than structure 2.
The roles of our group in this task were that Simba was responsible for building, the spaghetti structure. Mitchell was away from school and did not contribute to most of the project. My role in the group was to design and plan the buildings. Although we had our roles in the group, Simba and I worked together to complete this task. We looked over many different ideas and chose the most suitable design. Simba was good at building our designs and putting them together. I was happy with the drawings I did. I think my group worked well together on the first prototype. It was so successful that we felt it was hard to beat.
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
In the case that I researched the principles of justice were shown. Lloyd Reyney was charged with murder of his wife in 2010. In my essay I will talk about how the principles of justice are shown in my case, notes on the case and how the case can be improved. Lloyd Reyney supposably murdered Corryn Reyney, his wife in August 2007.
The right to a fair trial is a principle of justice that is shown in this case. The right to a fair trial is upheld in this trial this is proven because Lloyd was a barrister in Western Australia therefore he knew all the judges. He and his lawyer decided they wanted a judge, not from WA. A judge from the Northern Territory was used in the trials. In the trials, his lawyer asked for no jury because he thought it would be fair and not bias to a well know barrister in Western Australia. During the Lloyd Reyney investigation, done by the police, the police decided they only wanted to investigate one suspect, Lloyd Reyney. They had multiple suspects but only investigated one. I think that the police and people investigating this case should have definitely investigated more than just Lloyd because this could have changed the outcome of the trials and put the real person who murdered Corryn behind bars. This is definitely not right to a fair trial. Some parts of the case are fair other parts are unfair. The police should have definantly investigated other suspects to make it fairer.
The right to an appeal is upheld in this case because once the case was finished two years later someone appealed him and won the appeal. Trial by media was also shown a lot because many people thought Lloyd did it, and once everybody saw this online the word spread, and lawyers and judges wanted an appeal therefore this principle of justice is shown. Mr. Rayney was given $2.6 million after the appeal and was free from any other sentences.
The right to be independent and impartial is not upheld in this case. This is because the judge and plaintiff ‘were seeing many things outside the courts on social media and many other ways. This is very bad for Mr. Reyney because online many things are fake and can harshly affect the trials. The news was reporting on this a lot and had people talk about their opinions causing some to sway their opinion sometimes even the people working on the case.
There are many facts on this case, but I will only be going over a few. Lloyd Reyney was charged with murder on his wife 3 years before coryyns death. In 2007 Corryn Reyney was missing for 3 weeks and later found her body at king’s park, WA. The police said that Lloyd Reyney was the “prime and only suspect”, but he was definitely not. The police found brick particles on Lloyd, Coryyn, and the house they lived in which was apparently a piece of evidence which it was not because she had just come from their family home. Which is also not upholding the principle of justice, right to an equal/fair trial.
This case has many areas it needs to be improved on. Which are, how fair the trial was and how the police were only investigated Lloyd. I personally think that during the trials Mr Reyney should have had a jury. This would have made the media have less impact on the case. I think that this trial definantly wasted Mr Rayney time. They should have just done one simple trial with all the evidence and ended it besides, they did lots of trials and took lots of time to find Mr Rayney not guilty.
Justice has definantly not been upheld in this case. Through the multiple examples that the principles of justice are not shown. In 2012 Lloyd Rayney was found not guilty. Some parts of the case uphold justice, but others do not. Right to be independent and impartial was not upheld. Right to a fair trial is somewhat not upheld. Right to an appeal is upheld. Justice is not really upheld in the Lloyd Reyney case for those few reasons.
