In this project, we learnt about the principles of justice that upheld Australia’s legal system. I studied the case of Mr John Button and analysed how equality before the law, presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial were not upheld and violated in this case. After completing an in-class essay on the topic, we were required to incorporate feedback and edit the essay as the last part of our assignment. This essay is the result of that editing and feedback process and it shows my ability to take feedback and to refine a piece of written work to produce a professional result.

 

What is it about?

In some unlucky court cases in Australia, the principles have been compromised and not upheld. This is evident in Mr John Buttons case. Equality before the law, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial were not upheld in this case, and this caused 10 years of hard labour and 29 years of fighting for freedom for an unlucky, innocent man. This is where, how, and why the principles of justice were not upheld and how they could be improved.

 

Equality before the law

In Mr John Buttons case equality before the law was entirely not upheld because of the police investigation. Equality before the law is where an individual must be treated fair and, equivalent to the opposition, before the law. During the interview, the police punched and mentally harassed Mr Button into signing the confession that he killed the victim (Ms Anderson Rosemary).  ‘I thought the only way I was going to leave the interview room was by signing the confession’ –Mr Button, this shows us that Mr Button was treated unequally as his opposition wasn’t treated in this manner. The police used mental harassment by telling Mr Button that his girlfriend (the victim) had died and ‘over exaggerate’ this to force Mr Button to believe that signing the confession was his only way out of this. ‘I just wanted to roll up into a ball and cry’ -Mr Button, another quote from Mr Button showing us the extent of the harassment. The main piece of evidence which the police had was the confession which Mr Button had signed. This was the main reason for the incorrect jailing of Mr Button. Equality before the law would be extensively upheld by having a secondary police officer from a different location inside the interview room. The second police officer would help stop and restrict the primary officer from using these forces. The secondary police officer from a different area than the primary officer would not know the primary police officer conducting the interrogation. This helps reduce the use of physical and mental harassment as the secondary police officer would imply greater reason to stop these forces as he does not know and is likely not to be friends with the primary police officer. During the police investigation, equality before the law was entirely not upheld and this was a result of the police using physical and mental harassment, it resulted in the main evidence for the jailing of Mr Button.

 

Right to a fair trial

Presumption of innocence was partly not upheld in Mr Button’s case as the police and the judge failed to believe Mr Button’s innocence.  Presumption of innocence is where you believe the primary suspect to be not guilty of a crime in order to help make the verdict fair. In Mr Buttons case the police failed to believe Mr Button was innocent. The Police resorted to punching and mentally harassing Mr Button to get him to sign the confession that he killed the victim.The judges failed to believe Mr Button was innocent as they poor police investigation into account they also

rejected Edgar Cooke’s confession and therefore Mr Buttons appeal as they believed that Cooke was delaying his death sentence. This did not uphold presumption of innocence as the judges should have taken into account the investigation and Cooke’s Confession to the killing. The police should have presumed Mr Button was innocent and because of this Mr Button was sentenced to 10 years of hard labour (for the manslaughter of the victim). Right to a fair trial could be upheld by the example presented before in order to help stop unfair judgements and unfair police investigations. The secondary police officer would act and help prevent these issues in a similar way to that stated before. Because of the police’s and judge’s failure to presume Mr Buttons innocence they did not uphold the principle of presumption of innocence and this resulted in more jail time and fighting for freedom for Mr Button.

 

Presumption of innocence

The right to a fair was completely not upheld because not all the evidence was presented before the court. The right to a fair trial is where individuals have the right to an unbiased and equal (equivalent to the opposition) trial. Trevor Condren, the police car crash investigation expert, studied the damage on Mr Buttons car. Trevor said that the damage could not have been caused by a human hitting the car. It was later found, in police files, that Mr Button had hit a ford perfect not long before killing. ‘In my opinion, Mr Button’s car could not have hit Ms Anderson’ -Trevor Condren, after examining

Mr Buttons car. Trevor Condren was prevented from testifying in the original trial. The file of the ford perfect crash was discounted. Presumption of innocence can be more upheld by having the judge produce a reason for preventing someone from testifying. This would mean that if the judge was bribed and prevented someone from testifying then there would be no reason that the judge could put forward and that person can say his evidence. This is really important as it could jail innocent people like in Mr Buttons case. Not all the evidence found during the trial was presented before the court and because of this right to a fair trial was completely not upheld and it resulted in the jailing of Mr Button.

 

The extent

Mr John Button was finally let free because of a successful appeal in 2002. William Haight (A pedestrian crash expert) found new evidence which proved Edgar Cooke guilty and this is what set Mr Button free. In my opinion, the police force and the judge were corrupt and I have found an official document from 1985+ proving that there was a possibility of police corruption from then on. The trial was in 1963 (Mr John Buttons 19^th birthday) 23 years before the document. this proves the likelihood of police corruption in Mr Buttons trial. In Mr Buttons case equality before the law, presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial was not upheld in this case, this caused 10 years of hard labour and 29 years of fighting for freedom for an unlucky, innocent man.

 

Call to action

What are your thoughts on Mr Buttons case? Please leave in the reply section

Thanks for reading