Principles of Justice
In Australia, our legal system is based on several key principles of justice, each designed to ensure that all are treated fairly and with equality under the law. These principles are very important, each designed to cover different parts of the law, and are used as a basis in every trial. An example of this can be the principle of justice that states ‘all individuals are equal before the law’. This principle is a very general one, however, it is also very important in our justice system, allowing for anywhere (regardless of race, gender, or income level) to be treated the same. Another principle of Justice is ‘The Judiciary is independent and impartial’, which directly addresses the court system. This principle means that the courts must not take a bias towards a side and remain open to all evidence and cases on both sides. This can prevent the Government from being above the law or controlling the outcome of trials, judges being biased and one party having a greater opportunity to present their evidence. Despite these principles being a major part of our Judiciary system, they can still be compromised. As discussed further, in the Scott Austic case, some of these principles of justice were compromised, resulting in an unfair trial.
The Scott Austic Case
The Scott Austic case is a very interesting one indeed, showing how far the principle of justice can be compromised to bias the case. The case is horrendous in itself, with 22-week pregnant Stacy Thorne being stabbed 21 times and tragically dying on her neighbour’s lawn.
The immediate suspect was her current casual partner, Scott Austic. In just a week, the police had finished their investigation and were convinced that it was him who had done it. According to the investigation they conducted, on the night of the murder, after being refused service at a bar, Scott visited Stacy before leaving. They concluded that he went home to grab a can of Jim Bean before returning to kill her. The police also said that they had found a message on his phone stating, “I will do anything for you not to have it. Just please let me know. I’ll do anything”. They said that this was the motive. However, three main pieces of evidence were used against him; a knife found in a paddock between their homes with Stacy’s blood on it, a cigarette packet with Stacy’s blood on Scott’s table, and a Jim Bean can with Scott’s DNA found in the lawn not far from Stacy’s house. The prosecution, in the trial, also claimed that Scott lied about the clothes he was wearing and had burnt them on the stove. In the trial, the Jury found Scott guilty of murder, based on the evidence presented against him.
After the trial, Scott’s mother was convinced that it wasn’t him, eventually reaching out to a forensic pathologist Clint Hampson, who decided to look at the forensic evidence presented in court. The first piece of evidence, the cigarette packet, was analysed further to see its reliability in the case. Interestingly, the packet could be seen in the digital photos of the case. However, in the video footage of the table taken a day earlier, the packet could not be seen. This suggests that the packet had been placed in the time between the two pieces of evidence, which can mean that the cigarettes were tampered with to accuse Scott Austic of the Murder. The next piece of evidence used against Scott was the Jim Bean can found near Stacy’s house that had Scott’s fingerprints on it. However, the can could not be found earlier in the search, with at least five other police and forensic officers searching the area. The last piece of evidence used in court was the alleged murder weapon, a knife found in a paddock between Stacy and Scott’s house that was said to be what Scott used to stab Stacy. However, the knife only had the blood of Stacy on it, with no forensic evidence of Scott using it. The ground it was found on was also searched by specialist SES earlier, where they did not find any usable evidence. When Dr Richard Shepherd investigated the knife, he also suspected that it wasn’t the weapon used. This is because, while the width of the knife matched the size of the wounds, the blade of the knife (which was 10cm), could not have created any wounds deeper than 10cm. Finally, Scott’s housemates said that he was home at the time that the murder supposedly occurred, and that the bloodied footprints did not belong to him. They also stated that they used clothing as fuel for winter heating and the t-shirt burnt was different to the one, he was wearing on CCTV footage, (which opposes the evidence of Scott lying about his clothes).
Principles of Justice Upheld and Compromised
This case is an excellent example of how principles of justice, despite being the basis of our justice system, are sometimes not followed in cases, resulting in unfair and unjust trials and verdicts. One of the main principles of justice, that all individuals are treated equally before the law, is the first example of this. Scott Austic was treated with inequality, due to the police fixating on convicting him. As a result of this, he was framed by some police working on the case as the murderer of Stacy Thorne. Another principle of Justice that was not upheld is ‘high-quality evidence’. This means that the evidence used for or against the accused must be relevant to the crime, have evident links to the accused and be real (not tampered with). This was greatly compromised in the case as the evidence presented was not of high quality. After further inspection, the evidence is suggested to be tampered with and overall, not reliable (due to conflicting evidence). An example of this could be the said murder weapon, which was used as evidence against Scott despite it not being found by professionals earlier and it not being able to produce the wounds on Stacy. Finally, the principle stating ‘individuals have the right to a fair hearing’ was not observed. The evidence used against Scott had been tampered with, meaning that the outcome of the hearing was changed. The jury was always going to find Scott guilty, due to the overwhelming ‘evidence’. This means that the hearing wasn’t fair. This can show how despite the justice system aiming for equality, many cases are unjust and can wrongly accuse innocent people.
However, despite the lack of some principles of justice being upheld, not all of them were compromised. Some were still followed, despite the injustices in the case. For example, the principle stating ‘The judiciary is independent and impartial’ was supported. The court system itself was always impartial in the case, only assuming that all evidence presented was reliable and of high quality. They did not unfairly convict him, rather they used the unjust evidence to do so. This means that this principle was still followed in this case. This can show how, despite some areas of the case being unjust, others can still stay fair.
Conclusion
This case is a great example of how the legal system, despite looking for justice for all, can compromise essential principles that lead to unfair treatment of certain people (such as through an unfair accusation and verdict). In this case, some of the principles of justice were upheld, helping to keep the case somewhat fair, however many were still compromised resulting in Scott Austic being unfairly accused of the murder. This can show how the Justice system only works when all principles are followed in every case, and how all of them are of great importance, to ensure that everyone is treated with equality under the law. If we are to continue to move towards a more equal future, where all are treated the same under the law, we need to continue to implement the key principles of justice. This can ensure that cases such as Scott Austic’s can be avoided.