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.

Late 7^th of August 2007 or early hours of 8^th August 2007, Corryn Rayney was murdered and buried in Kings Park. She was diagonally buried so that all evidence of a murder weapon or cause of death was removed, after a boot scooting class. Her husband, Lloyd and Corryn had a crumbling marriage, and threats to each other’s careers. Lloyd was a well-known lawyer and was considered the prime and only suspect despite forensic scientist never being able to determine what caused Corryn’s death, exactly where or when she was murdered either. In the end, Lloyd was found not guilty of murder. The Principles of Justice, All Equal Before the law, The Right to a Fair Hearing, The Judiciary is Independent and Impartial, and The Right to Appeal, were both upheld and compromised in this case.

The first principle that was upheld is All Equal Before the law. This means that in court, everyone is to be treated the same despite their possibly different religious backgrounds and/or financial or social statuses. In this case, Lloyd was a very well-known and high- up lawyer. Because of this, the court provided a judge from a different state who did not know Lloyd personally or professionally. In doing so, this provided a more even field so that the judge did not make a biased verdict. The judge also decided to let Lloyd on bail to look after his two teenage daughters after being accused and facing trial on the 23^rd of December 2010. Some improvements of this principle could have been looking more at evidence before calling Lloyd the prime and only suspect.

The second principle is The Right to a Fair Hearing, this principle was both upheld and compromised. The concept of ‘The right to a fair hearing’ is that each party is allowed to give their evidence, while under oath and that the information being presented in the case was not manipulated or biased. The right to a fair hearing was shown all throughout the case both negatively and positively. Each party gave their evidence and were put under oath. Despite this, both parties were said to have manipulated the truth and even the police were said to have planted fake evidence against Lloyd. This principle was also upheld when the judge concluded that while strong suspicion was raised, Lloyd was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt and therefore was decided as innocent. Improvements of this principle could have been looking more at how Corryn was killed before conducting a narrow-minded investigation.

The third principle that was upheld in Lloyd’s case is The Judiciary is Independent and Impartial. This means that the courts are individual from the government and other courts and that they are unbiased. In Lloyd’s case he was assigned a judge from a different state which displays a non-biased trial. In the case, the court also had to decide what would happen if the oath was broken. It is also important that the court is independent to ensure there is no third-party persuasion and to reach a fair verdict. In this case, there was also no jury in the trial, which is an example of the principle being upheld. This creates a fairer verdict so that the people on the jury do not make a biased judgement. Improvements of this principle in Lloyd’s case could have been taking more care in regard to manipulating information while under oath.

The last principle was also upheld in Lloyd’s case, it is the concept of The Right to Appeal. Appeal is when an action or decision is taken/made by the judge and if either party disagrees with that decision, they argue against it trying to change the outcome of it. Both parties lodged an appeal in this case. Lloyd stated that his career was destroyed because he was publicly named ‘the prime and only suspect’. He was paid $2.62million in damages in a defamation action against the state, but in December 2017, he appealed, saying that he should be paid more for these damages. Prosecutors also appealed, saying that the judge did not assess all of the evidence in the case, but were denied after Western Australia’s Court of Appeal stated that the judge carefully and correctly evaluated all of the evidence.

In conclusion, the Lloyd Rayney case was a good example of how the Principles of Justice were both upheld and compromised. Lloyd was accused of wilfully his wife Corryn, but later found innocent. The principles were upheld by calling in a judge from out of state, having no jury, allowing him to look after his teenage daughters and when despite given strong suspicions, the judge did not find Lloyd guilty beyond reasonable doubt, so he was therefore innocent. Some improvements for this case could have been taking more care of manipulating information while under oath, looking more at how Corryn was killed, where and when before calling Lloyd the prime and only suspect and carrying out a narrow-minded investigation.