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 John Button, 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.
John Button was a normal boy living a happy life, he had a loving girlfriend and all was good, until she was killed, and John was charged with murder. Some of the principles of justice shown in the John Button case were; The right to silence, meaning you are not required to say anything when under police interrogation. The right to appeal, meaning the prosecution and/or the accused are able to appeal to a higher court providing reasonable ground. Presumption of innocence, all individuals are treated as if they are innocent, until proven guilty. the judge & jury must be unbiased, during a court case the judge and jury must make decisions based on evidence provided and not be made based off of media, bribery etc.
John Buttons right to silence was compromised as during police interrogation he was forced to talk. John said, “I believe I don’t have to say anything,” which the police responded with, “of course you do, you have to tell us everything.” This was followed by physical actions as the police punched him in the stomach.
In this case, John’s presumption of innocence wasn’t supported as when being questioned at the crime scene instead of gathering all the evidence they questioned John saying, “we want a confession, why did you do it, why did you kill her,” which shows that his rights were breached considering he wasn’t treated as an innocent person rather a criminal.
John’s right to appeal was both supported and compromised as at first John was found guilty because the police hadn’t done well when gathering evidence. Later on after 2 years of imprisonment, a serial killer *eric* Edwin cook was found guilty of his crimes. He made a confession that he had killed 8 people and 1 of them being Rosemerry Anderson, John’s girlfriend. In 2002 John watched a crash test of his car vs cook’s car to see the damage, as one piece of evidence used was the fact John had damage on the left hand side of the grill, which he had since before the incident. They had found out the damage on John’s car could not have been from hitting a pedestrian. With this newfound evidence John successfully appealed and was proven innocent.
The principle of justice, “Judge & jury must be unbiased,” was supported as the jury was independent and made their decision based on the evidence provided, although in the words of John, “jury members would change between willful murder & manslaughter just so they can all go home and have dinner.”
In conclusion, The principles of justice in the John Button case were both evenly supported and compromised. In my opinion, the John Button case could be improved with the right to silence and the presumption of innocence. During police interrogation instead of the police using brute force to get a confession out of John they could have used other methods e.g. asking for what happened/where were you on the day of the incident, that would’ve gathered more evidence than a punch to the stomach. At the scene of the crime instead of gathering evidence from the surroundings they instead went straight to question John, except they had the thought that he was 100% guilty and instead of doing thorough investigation and reasonable questioning they went straight to, “ we want a confession, why did you do it, why did you hit and kill her.”