Australia’s legal system, while complex and at times quite limited, is built on a number of key beliefs. These key beliefs are known as the principles of justice. The principles of justice help protect the rights of all Australian citizens. The main principles of justice include that all individuals are equal before the law, all individuals have the right to a fair hearing, all individuals have the right to a reasonable appeal, and that the judiciary is independent and impartial. Different laws are implemented to help ensure these principles of justice are upheld. An example of equality before the law is that everyone is treated equally by police regardless of their race, ethnic background, sex, income level or mental capacity. However, there are times when the principles of justice are compromised. The case of John Button is a perfect example of this. Despite some principles of justice being upheld, many were undermined throughout the case. Failure to uphold key principles of justice resulted in unfair treatment by police, an unfair verdict that stemmed from unreliable and limited evidence, the failure of an appeal, a biased judiciary that had ties to police, and a presumption Button was guilty of killing Rosemary Anderson before the trial even began.
In Australia’s legal system, the right to silence allows people to remain silent and refuse an interview or questioning by police. They can also choose to not give evidence during a hearing or trial. When Rosemary Anderson was taken to the hospital to be treated for fatal injuries due to a hit-and-run collision, the police questioned John Button. However, his honest answers to questions the police asked were not what the police wanted. They wanted a confession that Button was responsible for the crime. The police continued asking him questions that were aimed at taunting Button into confessing to the crime, even though he was never guilty in the first place. During all of this, Button said to the police that “I believe I don’t have to say anything.” Despite this statement being true and fitting legislature that targeted the rights of defendants or the accused, the police disagreed and replied “Of course you do. You have to do everything we tell you to.” This violated the principle of the right to silence because, if this right was upheld, Button should have been entitled to not answer any more questions when being investigated by the police. This right being compromised is a key example of how the principles of justice were not correctly conducted or served in the case of John Button.
The case of John Button involved the violation of the right to a judiciary that is independent and impartial. Independent and impartial means the judiciary is separate from the government and that the judge conducts the trial in a fair, unbiased manner. After the death of Rosemary Anderson, John Button was taken to court after the police stated that he was responsible for the hit-and-run murder of the young woman, who was his girlfriend. This was due to a signed confession Button made after undergoing physical assault such as being kicked in the stomach during police interrogation. Upon telling his lawyer this so that the confession could be ignored, his lawyer stated that he wished Button to tell “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. He believed Button but told him that if he attempted to invalidate the confession by reporting police misconduct, the judge and the jury would accuse him of ‘lying’ in court. This is a clear sign that the judiciary always believes the police, will not accept any criticism of the police, and that they were biased and not independent. The failure to uphold this principle of justice during the trial of John Button was just the beginning of a justice system that completely distanced itself from the beliefs it was created upon.
Another important principle of justice that was not upheld in the case of John Button was the presumption of innocence. Presumption of innocence means that the accused is presumed to be innocent until they are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove this guilt. It was clear during his trial that John Button was considered by the jury, police, and the general public to be responsible for the death of Rosemary Anderson. This stemmed from police believing Button was guilty when they were first questioning him after the incident, which escalated into physical assault and coercion into signing a confession. Button’s forced confession was deemed enough for the jury to believe in his guilt, despite it being obtained unlawfully. The trial turned out to be not a trial determining if he was responsible for the death of his girlfriend, but rather determining if he committed manslaughter or wilful murder. It is clear the jury already presumed he was guilty of killing Rosemary Anderson even though under the principles of justice, he should have been considered innocent unless the prosecution’s evidence proved otherwise. Recordings also prove that police and media sources publicly stated John Button’s name and had already given him the title of Rosemary Anderson’s murderer. This miscarriage of justice resulted in Button’s wrongful conviction and incarceration for 10 years, and exposed a deep, systematic prejudice within the Australian justice system.
The right to appeal allows people who are dissatisfied with the outcome of their case to have their case reviewed by the Supreme Court of Appeal under reasonable grounds. This can change the outcome of the case and can also influence the severity of the sanction. After Button was wrongly convicted of manslaughter, he entered Fremantle prison with a sentence of 10 years in jail. However, after he spent a year in jail, police intercepted and caught a serial killer by the name of Eric Edgar Cooke. Cooke confessed to the murder of many people, including Rosemary Anderson. Upon hearing this, Button’s lawyers immediately filed appeals. However, the court did not clear Button’s name which led to another attempted appeal. Once again, the appeal was rejected. This was shocking as Cooke had already claimed to killing Rosemary Anderson and there was evidence he was responsible. The evidence included detailed descriptions from Cooke himself as well as the vehicle that was used to commit the murder. The judiciary still decided that Button was guilty of manslaughter because they ‘thought’ Cooke was lying and wanted to exaggerate his murders. This ridiculous result was not justified as it contradicted confessions and high-quality evidence which proved Cooke was responsible for the hit-and-run murder of Rosemary Anderson. The right of appeal was undermined in this case which resulted in the continuation of the unjustified sentence of John Button.
After these two failed appeals and Button being released on parole five years into his sentence, Button’s brother met a journalist by the name of Estelle Blackburn during a night of ballroom dancing. Upon hearing of the injustices in Button’s case, Estelle Blackburn decided to help clear his name. She took the case to a high-profile defence lawyer who realised that to have a successful appeal, Button would need new evidence to convince the jury of his innocence. Over the course of 8 years, new evidence included scientific proof that the damage on Button’s car was not due to hitting a pedestrian and an unknown confession Cooke made right before his execution in 1964 was gathered and presented to the court. The jury decided that Button was not guilty of manslaughter and he was finally exonerated. While this process did take away nearly four decades of Button’s life, the success of this appeal is a perfect example of a principle of justice being supported in John Button’s case.
An essential principle of justice during cases is high-quality evidence. Verdicts must be based on high-quality evidence, which must be reliable and relevant. In the case of John Button, evidence was very limited and there was no evidence to support Button was guilty of hitting Rosemary Anderson. The main evidence used by the jury was the damage to Button’s car. However, the damage was from a minor incident five months prior that had no connection with the death of his girlfriend or a collision with any pedestrian. A detective had also inspected the car and claimed that the damage could not have possibly come from hitting a person. This claim never made it to court, as the same police who had interrogated and physically abused Button threatened the detective with his job and reputation. The detective was then forced to tell the court that the damage on Button’s car could have been caused by a collision with a person. This means the evidence was tampered during the trial. Testimony to Button’s character was also given to prove he was gentle and careful person who would have never been involved in a hit-and-run collision. All of this was dismissed by the court but the tampered evidence was used as the baseline to ‘prove’ that Button was guilty of hitting Rosemary Anderson. There was very little evidence in the trial to prove that Button was guilty of manslaughter or murder but tampering of the evidence eventually led the jury to decide that he was guilty of manslaughter. This goes entirely against the principle of justice regarding high-quality evidence as an essential part of the judiciary.
While the evidence during the first trial of John Button was not sufficient, the principle of justice of high-quality evidence was supported during the appeal of Button. After two failed appeals, Button’s lawyers decided new evidence would be needed in order for a successful third attempt. They decided to contact two men named Rusty and Brad. The two men used scientific proof from car crash dummies to prove that the damage to Button’s car was not due to hitting a person. They decided this could overturn the verdict made by the jury in 1963 as the damage to Button’s car was what the jury had originally decided to base their verdict on. Two other pieces of evidence were also found. A previously hidden confession from Cooke about Rosemary Anderson’s murder just before he was executed in 1964 and a recorded confession from the detective who was threatened to state the damage from Button’s car was due to hitting a pedestrian were both added as extra pieces of evidence. This evidence was far more reliable and truthful than the evidence used by police in Button’s first trial and it led to a successful appeal. Button’s exoneration, which took almost four decades, was achieved by upholding the principle of justice of high-quality evidence which was done by getting scientifically proven evidence as well as previous confessions that were unknown to the public.
The case of John Button certainly exposed many flaws in how correctly Australia’s legal system holds and accounts for its actions. The principles of justice played fundamental roles in this case, but not all of them were upheld. While principles of justice such as the right to appeal and high-quality evidence were supported, the majority of the principles were compromised and undermined. Failure to uphold the right to silence, an impartial and independent jury, the presumption of innocence, the right to appeal and high-quality evidence led to an unjustified sanction being imposed on John Button with the aftereffects continuing to this day. Taking these factors into consideration, it is safe to conclude that the extent of justice that was upheld in Button’s case was far less than what should have been upheld and certainly not as sufficient as it should have been. Hopefully, the judiciary today can learn from the mistakes of the past and continue to follow the principles of justice so that the right decisions can be made and justice can correctly be served.