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 Gene Gibson, 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.
On the 26th February 2010, a night that forever changed two men and their families occurred. After Josh Warneke said goodbye to a few mates and made what was supposed to be a simple walk home. Turned into the walk that altered two men’s lives. In an odd circumstance of events, these two men forever had their lives intertwined. Intertwined in a large homicide case that changed how these men would be remembered, in a case changed the landscape of the justice system. Gene Gibson was a man who was unfairly indicted for the homicide of Josh Warneke. Gibson was served a whopping 5 years in imprisonment. Gibson would’ve served a whole shameful 7 years sentence if it wasn’t for the heroic efforts of the Corruption and Crime Commission who called on police to ensure that Gibson’s case was a fair trial, and all the other efforts put in place to prove Gibson’s innocence in his appeal. Finally, after all the efforts, the case turned around in an overdue justice for Gibson. Since then, the Gene Gibson case has been regarded as a flaw to the justice system. With many holes present in the case, justice has not been upheld throughout many parts. In particular, many principles of justice set up to help our justice system were compromised in the Gene Gibson case. I have found that the two principles of justice, that are supposed to keep our justice system in-tact, were violated and compromised. These two violated principles were Equality before the law and Reliable evidence. These 2 principles highlighted the errors of the Gibson case and if these principles of justice were maintained throughout the case, then Gibson’s case would’ve not gone down as the flaw it has been regarded as now. However, some of the case was done correctly and one principle of justice was upheld in the case. This was the principle of a Right to Appeal. The Gene Gibson case had many flaws, but still will be used to improve the future of our justice system for no similar cases to offend. Some suggestions for improvement will be featured.
The principle of equality before the law was compromised throughout the Gene Gibson case from the start to the finish. The principle of equality before the law ensures the persons accused of a crime has access to the basic human rights they deserve. This principle of justice can include access to legal aid, no bias towards race, sex or looks. This principle of justice is important for a fair trial to be executed as all people in a case should receive the same rights, no matter the situation or what they look like. If this key principle made to keep our justice system a-float is violated, many issues can occur. For example, if an individual was judged based on their race then they can get punished or persecuted for no valid reason other than pure racism. Affecting their case over something that an individual can’t control whatsoever. It’s also a basic human right to be treated equally and thus is vital for proving someone’s innocence or guilt in a court trial/case. Gene Gibson was an aboriginal man from a remote location, far from the metropolitan area of Perth. Gibson grew up with extremely limited knowledge of the court system, never being educated on the topic of law. Gibson also had a very tough upbringing with family issues and financial issues. Mr Gibson also suffered from a cognitive impairment he has making it harder for him to understand/grasp basic concepts in front of him. On top of Gibson’s already present array of intellectual problems, Mr Gibson also had no prior knowledge of English. Thus when a hungry police force who still hadn’t found the perpetrator of the homicide after two years of relentless work came to ask Mr Gibson about his involvement in the murder of Josh Warneke. Gibson wasn’t treated equally as someone being asked about murder as he couldn’t comprehend what was being asked for him to do/say. The police force was also deductive relentlessly, trying to feed to the idea/theory that Mr Gibson was the killer rather than being inductive. For 2-years police still hadn’t found who killed Warneke and had pressure on their backs to find anyone. When police laid their attention on Gibson, they tried their best to put him in trouble. The manner of deductive reasoning is where specific observations are aimed to develop a theory. For example, in the Gibson case, the theory was to prove Gibson’s guilt and police were looking for evidence that proved his guilt, rather than being inductive. Inductive reasoning is where police look at all the evidence and make a general statement from this evidence and not form a theory. For example, if the police did the right thing and followed inductive reasoning then they would look at all the evidence and see made a conclusion based on all the evidence. If police followed an inductive manner then there would be a much higher chance that equality before the law would’ve been carried out fairly and Gibson would walk out innocent from the jump. Gibson was also not given, access to a legal representation or interpreter during his first interviews. The right of equality before the law is supposed to cover all these vacancies. Since Gibson was not advised or known to himself that he was legible for access to legal aid, this caused Gibson to feel pressured into answering the police interviews. Therefore every answer he made which he wasn’t aware could be used against him, was used against him to point the finger and sentence him to prison time. Mr Gibson wasn’t given adequate help that the principle of equality before the law was supposed to cover. If Gibson was given a fair interpreter there’s a high chance he never would’ve served his time. For similar cases to not offend the principle of equality before the law, we must ensure that a suspect is literate, an English speaker and is able to comprehend the court system process. To meet these requirements we must implement a test that a suspect or witness must have had taken to ensure they can speak English before being interviewed to ensure they are literate and have a sound knowledge of the court system process. If they are not intellectually sound we can give legal aid from the jump. Unfortunately, Gene was not provided with the correct rights he was entitled to and served a lengthy five year prison time in total that he did not deserve.
Reliable evidence was compromised in the Gene Gibson case throughout. Evidence is one of if not the most important compartments to proving an individuals guilt in a case. The evidence must be trustworthy and 99.999% correct without a doubt, if the evidence isn’t however correct, severely incorrect judgments will be made, leaving a deep scar on the outcome of a case. Thus in Gene’s case, the main piece of evidence revolves around him admitting to the manslaughter of Josh Warneke in 2014. However this is not reliable evidence. There were many flaws that went into the final decision of Gene Gibson pleading guilty and the court taking this decision as a true statement. In reality the plead to guilty wasn’t even made by Gibson, but rather the decision of others and bad influences. The first negligence of reliable evidence was when Gibson was told by his lawyer to “plead guilty”. Gene’s lawyer influenced Gibson to plead guilty as he would get a shorter sentence compared to if Gibson decided to continue his case. Due to Gibson’s lack of understanding and intellectual problems he voluntarily listened not knowing the setbacks. In turn, the evidence that Gibson pleaded guilty was the main evidence the court used against Gibson, but as stated Gibson wasn’t aware of the circumstances put on him and what his answers would do to him. In turn, reliable evidence wasn’t used in the Gibson case as legal aid’s purpose was defeated through limited support to Gibson’s case. Another piece of un-reliable evidence were witnesses reports. Witness reports are a big part of proving someone’s innocence. Individuals who witnessed the crime first hand can give an unbiased detailed look/perspective on what happened. However, if a witness lies and has a biased take on a crime, it can incredibly alter a case. In the Gene Gibson case, there was a two year period where the case was unsolved. Everything would change however after a momentous $100,000 reward for information regarding the case surfaced for anyone who could find out who was the perpetrator. The offer flushed out a new witness who had a story to tell about Mr Gibson. The witness claimed he was in the stolen car with Mr Gibson on the night Mr Warneke died and had fallen asleep on the back seat. He told police a heavy bump had woken him and when he asked Mr Gibson what had happened, he was told the car had just hit a white man. The witness named two others who were in the car, but when police interviewed them, they denied that the new witness had been in the vehicle. But after pressure from the police, they changed their stories. These witness accounts were made from men who were most likely intoxicated and also had limited knowledge of court procedures. These men weren’t fluent with their stories acting on pressure from police, acting as a yes-man to the police. In August 2012, two junior detectives were sent to Kiwirrkurra to take a statement from Mr Gibson. Despite Mr Gibson’s limited grasp of English and cognitive issues, the interviews were conducted without an interpreter or a lawyer. It was in those lengthy interviews that Mr Gibson “confessed” to hitting Mr Warneke with the car. After more hours of questioning, he changed his story to say he had hit Mr Warneke with a rock. Forensic evidence suggested the weapon might have been an axe or a pole, Mr Gibson changed his story again to say it was a pole. Police now had the evidence they needed to charge him with murder. With many un-reliable pieces of evidence used against Mr Gibson to imprison him, the principle of Reliable Evidence was not upheld throughout many parts and was strongly compromised. In the future for similar cases not to offend we must make sure that legal aid is always present in any case and individuals like Gibson who cannot express themselves and get the help they need. We must also ensure that all witnesses are tested to make sure they are legible people who will tell the truth, with not many past offences to the law. These witnesses must be tested for alcohol at the time of their interview and any other substance to assure they are speaking on their right mind and not under the influence of a substance. On a whole, Gibson’s case did not include reliable evidence throughout.
The right to appeal: The right to appeal is where either side of a court feel as if their decision was false and undeserving, aiming for a second chance to re-do their case in a higher-ranking court. This is important as everyone deserves a second shot at doing their case again if there is a reasonable ground for appeal. For example, in the Gibson case if Gibson wasn’t given the right to appeal he would’ve still been locked up behind bars, completing more undeserving time at the jail. This is also important as everyone should be able to be heard by more experienced judges as well in higher levels of courts. In Gibson’s case, this principle was one of the scarce lists of things the trial did correct, being upheld in the right manner. After many on-going efforts mainly from Josh Warneke’s mother herself, she was the front runner for an appeal years after Gene’s conviction. Finally, the appeal was squashed and passed on after 5 years of imprisonment by Gibson, giving the justice he deserved. In the future, it should be made a mandatory item if there is a reasonable ground to appeal, you must go through the appeal process. Appeals should also be made quicker and more convenient without the extremely long waits. For example, Gene Gibson had to go through an appeal process that took a lot of time and kept him In prison for a bit longer. If it wasn’t for the right to appeal as stated Gibson would have faced his whole 7 year imprisonment time in which he obviously did not deserve. Thanks to the right of appeal Gibson did receive some form of justice, but nothing can ever make up for the prison time Gibson spent.
Thus in conclusion the Gene Gibson case was compromised throughout many parts, not supporting the principles of justice the way they are supposed to support cases. From Equality, before the law and Reliable Evidence, these two main principles exposed the flaws of the case. However, one principle of justice was supported. This principle was the right to appeal as Gibson was granted the right to appeal in the end and get the justice he deserved. The Gibson case however can be used to improve the future of our justice system as we know it. For any similar case in the future, it can be made sure that reliable evidence is used throughout the case. It could also be made sure that the accused can speak English and comprehend/understand what’s being asked of them. Also making sure if an accused or witness has an impairment making it harder to speak out on their side of the story that these people are given legal aid. If an accused or anyone involved in a case does have an impairment or a language barrier, making sure legal aid is provided to help out. E.g. lawyer. The Gene Gibson case had it’s flaws and a scare amount of principles of justice being upheld, but in the end the case will be looked back upon as a way to improve the justice system as we know it. Sadly Josh Warneke’s actual perpetrator has still not been found and is still out there. Warneke’s family will still have to deal with the guilt of the passing away of Warneke. Whilst on the other hand Gibson’s family are still recovering from the impact this case has had on their son and themselves. In the end Gibson did get his justice and his respected ex-gratia pay. The two families will continue to live their lives, as they have to live with the reality that two individuals who never knew each other, or met will forever have their lives intertwined together.