Introduction of the case.

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.

In 2007, Corryn Rayney was Brutally murdered and found in a shallow grave in kings’ park. Lloyd Rayney was accused of killing his wife on the 7th of august after a boot-scooting class and buried the body in a bush grave in Kings Park, the body was found on the 15^th of August. The trial was held on September 17^th  2008 and the outcome of the trial was concluded to Lloyd Rayney being Innocent and not guilty of the killing of Corryn Rayney. The trial includes the principles of justice which is a set of policies that make the trial fairer. The trial was extremely fair and it upheld justice by upholding all the key principles of justice, equality before the law, right to a fair hearing, maintaining independence and impartiality and the right to appeal.

Picture of Lloyd Rayney and the media taking pictures and recording him

All equal before the law

The principle of all equal before the law is to ensure that equality is upheld, and everybody is treated the same in a court case. All equal before the law is used to make sure people are not treated for the type of age, sex, income level, the type of person they are, Etc. In the Lloyd Rayney case, the principle of All equal before the law was greatly upheld and not compromised. It was greatly upheld as Justice Martin, the judge of the case made did not evaluate him for the type of person, sex, age or income level Lloyd Rayney is. It is said Judgement summary that Rayney has engaged in discreditable activity such as not admitting showing evidence is displaying him as a bad character. Although he could be viewed as a bad character he quotes, “Cannot be used to reason that the accused is the type of person who might kill his wife, such reasoning would be unfair and prohibited” This strongly supports the principle of equality as the judge said himself it would  be prohibited and unfair to accuse Rayney of the type of person he is. This shows that the judge did not examinate and forge his verdict based around the type of person he is and his mentality.

Right to fair hearing

The principle of having a right to a fair hearing is a principle to ensure justice among all cases in the court.  The principle of having a right to a fair trial is basically making sure the judge gives both sides the opportunity to present their evidence and the judge will listen to them with the same level of respect. In the Lloyd Rayney case, the principle of a right to a fair hearing was extremely upheld by the judge as the judge heard both Rayney’s side of the story and the prosecutors side of the story and they both had the opportunity to provide their evidence and reasoning behind the case. The judge quotes “In the context of circumstantial evidence, it is essential to apply strictly the burden of proof. It would be entirely inappropriate to start with a presumption of guilt and then consider whether the evidence is consistent with that view.” This means that the judges perspective must be equal throughout the case and cannot believe one is guilty then review the evidence as that is in  an inappropriate and biased fashion. This supports the Principle of a fair hearing due to the respect and fairness Justice Martin has.

Picture of Lloyd Rayney (accused) and Corryn Rayney (deceased) Together.

Maintaining independence and impartiality

Maintaining independence and impartiality is a key principle of justice is that means that the judge must make his decision and do the judging process without any influence. Being independent helps the courts case stop prejudice which is basically a stereotype that influences a group of people. Maintaining impartiality is where the judge treats all disputes and rivals equally and is very useful in a situation like the Lloyd Rayney case. The Principle of maintaining independence and impartiality in the Lloyd Rayney case was upheld the most out of all principles in this case. The case was all over media at the time, this being said, during the trial, the case was only reviewed by the judge, this supports the principle of impartiality as this eliminates the fact that the jury can have a bias opinion towards their decision of the case which would uphold prejudice  the reason for the jury having a bias opinion is they could possibly take into factor the media coverages take on it and have already pre-existing thought on Lloyd Rayney as he Is well known in Perth. Another way this court case upholds independence and impartiality is the judge, Justice Martin is from a completely different state than Rayney, he is from the northern territory, the reason for this is because the judge does not know who Lloyd Rayney the accused is before the trial to stop a bias outcome against Lloyd Rayney. A way they could improve on this is that they could have another judge from another state as well for more opinions and to make the judgement  more accurate. The Principle of Impartiality and independence was extremely upheld by stopping prejudice and having an independent judge

image of Lloyd Rayney before the defamation trial

Right to appeal

 The right to appeal is a principle of justice that ensures that if the person is not happy with the outcome of the case, they have the right to submit a complaint telling the court case reviewers (judges) to reconsider their choice and think over it again. The principle  was upheld in the Lloyd Rayney case. This Principle of justice was completely upheld as when Lloyd Rayney was pronounced not guilty, the prosecutors were absolutely not happy with the outcome of the results. This follows the Principle of appealing as they were not happy with the results and asked the court to consider changing their decision. Even though they appealed, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the court has to accept their appeal, and so they didn’t, this still follows the principle of appealing as they went over their decision and felt like it was the right one, so the appeal was went through but did come in the prosecutors favour.

 What could the case improve on

In the Lloyd Rayney case, they made one pretty big mistake, only suspecting 1 person, Lloyd Rayney, in the trial, they only accused and brought in one suspect as quoted in the headlines of the ABC  news website “Lloyd Rayney was the prime suspect”  They could improve on the case by bringing another suspect to the trial and not only just accusing Lloyd Rayney even though the outcome of the event was Lloyd Rayney being innocent.

Summary

To summarize everything that has been said so far, the Lloyd Rayney Murder case Extremely upheld justice by upholding and highlighting the key principles of justice, all equal before the law, right to a fair hearing, maintaining independence and impartiality and the right to appeal. They maintained independence with no jury. prosecutors had the right to appeal, the judge-maintained fairness during the case and did not judge Rayney for the type of person he is. To improve the case, they could add another judge from different state to add more opinion and make the final judgment more accurate.