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 Australia there are 7 values and regulations that all courts have to follow these are called the principles of justice. The principles are equality before the law, Presumption of innocence, all individuals have the right to a fair hearing, the judiciary is independent and impartial, the right to appeal, The right to remain silent and The right to legal aid. The 7 principles of justice have either been upheld or compromised in the case of Lloyd Rayney. Lloyd Raney was accused of murder of his wife Corryn Rayney in 2007.

The first principle of justice that affected the case is Equality before the law. This principle means that all should be treated fairly regardless of your race, sex, age, ethnicity, or religion. This supported the case as Lloyd Rayney was given equal treatment such as the right to a lawyer, equal say in the court and his request for a non-jury hearing was approved. These examples have shown that this principle of justice has been upheld by giving Lloyd Rayney equal rights, not excluding him because of his race, sex, age ethnicity or religion. 

The second principle of justice is the right to a fair trial. This principle states that all are entitled to a fair trial, a fair trial means that both parties are allowed to speak their case equally. This means that they must be treated equally given a translator if they have trouble or can’t understand English. This principle of justice supported my case accordingly with how his request for a non-jury hearing was accepted and done because Mr Rayney was given the same rights as anyone else, especially the prosecution. They were both allowed to state their cases equally and both cases had equal consideration. The way that this principle compromised my case as the presumption of innocence was breached, this was compromised by the police releasing a statement too early on in the investigation that Lloyd Rayney was the prime and only suspect. This breached the presumption of innocence because the statement was broadcasted to the media, this meaning that everyone would’ve known knowledge prior to the case, especially the jury.

The third principle of justice is the presumption of innocence. The way that presumption of innocence was violated is because the police released a statement to everyone including the media that Lloyd Rayney was the prime and only suspect when there were other suspects not investigated as thoroughly as Mr Rayney. This was a violation of this principle because the police shouldn’t have addressed this so early in the investigation. They shouldn’t have been trying to prosecute Raney just because there was minimal evidence linking him to the murder. They should’ve assumed he was innocent, not try to think of how he is the murder and how they’d prove this.

Finally, the last principle is the jury or judge being impartial and independent. This principle means that the deciding force in the case is independent and is sperate from parliament. Being impartial is their decision is not to be affected by any knowledge prior to the hearing. This principle supported the case as the request for a judge-only presiding was approved as Mr Rayney’s reasoning was that since the police announced that he was the prime and only suspect that the jury would be indefinitely influenced by their statement therefore making their decision not impartial. The judge that presided was an interstate judge flown in so he could have no knowledge prior towards the hearing, therefore presiding fairly. This principle was compromised by the police releasing their statement early on when the investigation was still happening. Therefore, the public would know information prior to the hearing therefore making the deciding power’s decision partial.

Mr Rayney was found to be not guilty, the reasoning to this was that the prosecutor’s evidence wasn’t sufficient. These principles of justice have been supported or compromised in Mr Rayney’s case. If these principles hadn’t been upheld at all, then the trial wouldn’t be fair. This case is a great example for how the principles of justice have a great affect on the legal system in Australia.