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.
Case Facts
On the 7th of August 2007, the whole of Perth was shocked to hear of the brutal murder of mother of two, Corryn Rayney. August the 15th, Corryn’s car was found on Kershaw Street, Subiaco, which was a twenty minute drive from her Tuesday line dancing class in Bentley. Police followed an oil leak from her car to a bush grave where she was found buried head down in Kings Park which was 1km away. Throughout the Investigation and Trial of the Lloyd Rayney case, two of the four principles of justice were undermined. These principles include the right to a fair trial, impartial and independent judiciary, all are equal before the law and the right to appeal.
The Right to a Fair Trial
The right to a fair trial is a law that aims to ensure that every individual that comes before the courts are given a fair and equal chance to prove themselves to the judge and jury. This principle was undermined in many ways. This is because the police had named Rayney the prime suspect in 2007, which was the year of Corryn Rayney’s death. The only evidence the police had found against him was the liquid amber seed pods found in Corryn’s hair and the liquid amber tree found in the Rayney’s backyard, the troubles in the Rayney relationship and his reluctance to cooperate. Another thing that happened to compromise this principle was the non-jury trial. Although this was his preference, it means Rayney doesn’t get the same opportunity as others and doesn’t get as wide a range of beliefs and perspectives. However, this principle was also upheld in two subtle ways. This is referring to when Rayney got to choose to have a non-jury trial and when they chose a judge from the Northern Territories.
Impartial and Independent Judiciary
The second principle is the impartial and independent judiciary makes sure the judiciary system, which includes judges, magistrates, adjudicators, and other support personnel who run the system, isn’t biased or being influenced. This principle was compromised in only one way, which was a result of the polices’ early accusation against Lloyd Rayney. This is because the judge/jury could’ve been biased against Rayney because of the pressure from the police and the public.
All are Equal Before the Law
The principle, all are equal before the law makes sure no individual is judged based on their income level, gender, race, age etc. This was the first principle that was fully upheld in the Rayney case. This was because the judges/juries weren’t biased towards Rayney because of his job as a barrister. Another way it was supported was, like I stated in the paragraph before, when they got a judge from the Northern Territories since he knew everyone from WA and they could’ve favoured him. The last way the principle is upheld is that he had a non-jury trial. However, it isn’t common, in WA, a trial heard by a judge alone is only allowed in conditions where the petitioner can convince the courts that it is in the interest of justice to proceed that way.
The Right to Appeal
Lastly, the right to appeal, is a principle that gives any party the right to argue for a reconsideration of the sanction. This was the last principle that was upheld in this case. This is because in 2018, Rayney appealed against the judgement of his defamation trial and pursued a raise in the damages area of the compensation. He also appealed two years after the trial for his wife’s murder and was found not guilty.
Conclusion
Overall, the Rayney case, trial and investigation was greatly faulted and could’ve been improved greatly. Some examples of this include, waiting to have enough evidence against Lloyd Rayney before naming him the prime suspect and making sure the judge wasn’t biased by having the trial heard by a jury as well. Altogether, this case was not completely compromised and could’ve been easily fixed.