The legal system aims to achieve just outcomes, however the perception of justice varies between individuals, the legal system and society in general. A ‘just outcome’ cannot be simply defined, so a working definition is developed instead. A just outcome is said to be “a result of any process or procedure on individuals and society within the operation of the legal system that is seen as fair or proper by the majority of society”.

Justice can be procedural and substantive. Procedural justice is attained where the process for reaching a decision is fair and just. Substantive justice is where the final outcome is fair and just.

A ‘just outcome’ is measured by four principles: fairness, equality, mechanisms and values. Fairness is achieved by the unbiased treatment of the accused and an independent judiciary. Equality is achieved by the accused being treated impartially and the law being applied to all people in the same way. Mechanisms are the facilities provided by the legal system to produce a just outcome. Values are ideals and opinions of society in general, formed from moral, social, economic or political beliefs.

Conversely, the principles of just outcomes can be restricted by negative operational factors: structural, access and cultural/socio-economic. Structural factors like criminal trial procedure, rules of evidence and the role of the jury negatively affect the attainment of just outcomes. Cultural factors like media bias further hinder the attainment of just outcomes.

The two outcomes being examined are the Chamberlain Trial (1982) and the Walsh Street Trial (1991).

The Chamberlain trial involved the disappearance of nine-week-old Azaria Chantel Chamberlain from Ayers Rock Camping Ground on 17 August 1980. Alice Lynne Chamberlain claimed her daughter was taken from the family tent by a dingo. Police maintained that Lindy had killed Azaria in the family car and when new evidence was uncovered a second coroner’s inquest was held. Subsequently, Lindy was placed on trial for murder in the NT Supreme Court. The jury unanimously found Lindy guilty of murder and sentenced her to life imprisonment with hard labour. Her husband, Michael Chamberlain, was found guilty of being an accessory after the fact and given an 18-month suspended sentence.

The Walsh Street Trial involved the murder of two police constables in South Yarra on 12 October 1988. The police alleged that Trevor Pettingill, Victor Pierce, Anthony Farrell and Peter McEnvoy plotted to kill two officers after their associate, Graeme Jensen was shot by police only 13 hours earlier , in accordance with a ‘two-for-one’ pact. The co-accused were placed on trial for murder in the Victorian Supreme Court and all made unsworn statements regarding their whereabouts when the murders occurred. The co-accused were all acquitted on 26 March 1991.

The outcome of the Chamberlain trial was procedurally just due to the principles of equality, fairness, mechanisms and values being present throughout the trial. However, it is argued that the outcome was substantively unjust, because the principle of fairness was restricted by the structural factor of rules of evidence and procedure. The structural factor of the role of the jury also restricted the principles of fairness and equality.

The principle of equality was present through the Chamberlains utilising professional legal representation, being tried by their peers (jury) and their right to appeal after conviction. Fairness was ensured by the Chamberlains using the right to appeal the decision and having access to appropriate legal mechanisms. The social value that those accused of an indictable offence should be tried fairly was present. The presence of the four principles ensured a procedurally just hearing.

However, it is argued that extraordinary media coverage and publicity surrounding the trial made it impossible to find a totally impartial jury. The jury’s ability to reach a just decision was hindered by widespread rumours stemming from the Chamberlains’ religion, cool dispositions and their presentation in the media in addition to the media’s biased dramatisation of events. The media attention meant that the Chamberlains were not treated equally, as in most cases the jury don’t have preconceptions of the accused’s guilt. This also jeopardised the fairness of the trial; it is unfair to convict on opinions formed from biased sources. Moreover, the mere possibility that Lindy’s version of events was accurate meant that the jury could not be convinced of her guilt, beyond reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, it is argued the outcome of the Chamberlain Trial was substantively unjust due to the Crown’s expert forensic evidence hindering fairness. It was found that Crown forensic tests were performed by scientists not necessarily experts in very specific fields of study . Professor Boettcher and world-renowned immunologist Professor Sir Gustav Nossal challenged Crown witness Joy Kuhl’s expert testimony of an arterial spray of foetal haemoglobin in the Chamberlain’s car; the spray was later found to be sound deadener from the manufacturing process. These incorrect findings meant the jury was not presented with correct information necessary to reach a fair and just decision.

The Walsh Street trial was procedurally just due to the principles of equality, fairness, mechanisms and values being present throughout the trial. However, the outcome was substantively unjust because the principle of fairness was restricted by the structural factor of criminal trial procedure (rules of evidence and procedure).

The principle of equality was present during the trial through the co-accused’s right to legal representation and their choice regarding testimony ; as everyone accused of murder. The principle of fairness was present through the prosecution having the burden of proof, and the criminal standard of proof. The co-accused had access to appropriate mechanisms - their trial was heard in the Supreme Court with standard pre-trial and trial procedures. The value that those accused of crimes must be proven guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to be convicted was present, because despite strong public outcry and the general assumption of the co-accused’s guilt , the jury still returned a not-guilty verdict as the Crown did not prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

However, it is argued that the outcome was substantively unjust because the role of unsworn statements hindered the principle of fairness. The co-accused’s choice to make unsworn statements exempted them from prosecution cross-examination. This allowed them to make allegedly untrue statements that couldn’t be tested by the Crown – so the jury could have been presented with lies that could be accepted as the truth, without any opportunity for the prosecution to question the credibility or truthfulness of the evidence.

In overview, both the Chamberlain and Walsh Street trials were justly processed within the legal system, but the verdicts were substantively unjust.

The Chamberlain trial impacted positively and negatively on society and the legal system. The widespread campaign to review the decision of the Chamberlain case increased general public awareness of the legal system but the negative representation of the Chamberlains in the media confirmed the negative community view of the accused.

The outcome impacted positively on the legal system as it demonstrated the fair and appropriate use of criminal justice mechanisms (NT police force , Coroner’s court , NT Supreme Court and a Royal Commission of Inquiry ). Furthermore, the public disquiet over the verdict prompted further legal action , reinforcing the public’s important role in the legal system. Conversely, the verdict impacted negatively on the legal system because, arguably, the innocent parties were convicted and imprisoned. This, in the eyes of many, lowered the legal system’s reputation but the Chamberlain’s eventual acquittal reinforced the legal system’s capacity to ultimately reach just outcomes.

The outcome of the Walsh Street trial impacted positively on society by confirming the criminal justice system’s capacity to protect the rights of the accused against public hysteria and media bias. The memorial created in honour of the dead officers for policing and educational purposes was also beneficial to the wider community.

However, the outcome also impacted negatively on society. The fact that the co-accused were acquitted after making allegedly untrue statements regarding their whereabouts at the time of the killing reduced public confidence in the legal system’s ability to convict criminals. The families of the murdered constables also had to live with the tragedy without recompense.

The outcome also impacted positively on the legal system by prompting the subsequent review of the rules of evidence, specifically the role of unsworn statements by the Victorian Law Reform Commission. The outcome also increased the strictness of police operational conduct.

The outcome impacted negatively on the legal system by creating a sense of disillusionment with the legal system, within the police force. Furthermore, the outcome appeared to many people as an acquittal of guilty parties.

A number of reforms were suggested as a result of the Chamberlain and Walsh Street trials.

From the Chamberlain trial and Justice Morling’s findings, it was clear that the role of expert forensic evidence needed to be reviewed. Justice Morling discounted much of Joy Kuhl’s expert evidence that blood was found in numerous places in the car, scissors, towel, chamois and camera bag. “Only a tiny quantity of blood, if any at all, was found in the car” . Justice Morling called for a national institute of forensic science where independent expert scientists could perform unbiased tests to avoid such horrendous errors again, and overcome the structural factor of biased evidence. The use of independent experts would also overcome the structural factor of incorrect evidence. They would not reach conclusions to satisfy one party’s case, as was alleged in the Chamberlain trial. However, such a laboratory would be restricted by the access factor of costs and increase the structural factor of delays. Furthermore, it could be overwhelmed by the number of cases, so that each case would not necessarily be investigated thoroughly enough to find the truth.

The Walsh Street Trial emphasised the need for the reform of rules of evidence, specifically unsworn statements. After the acquittal of the co-accused on the strength of their unsworn statements , it was apparent that the rules of evidence allowed the accused to make untrue statements that could not be challenged by the Crown. In response to the widespread call for reform in this area, the government referred the matter to the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which resulted in the Evidence (Unsworn Evidence) Act (Vic.) 1992, removing the accused’s right to make an unsworn statement. This reform overcame the structural factor of inappropriate mechanisms for dispute resolution, but also had negative repercussions; the cultural factor of self-presentation restricted the principles of fairness and equality. People who were nervous or seemed unconvincing in the witness box under cross-examination could be seen to be hiding the truth. Previously, such people had the ability to make an unsworn statement to avoid the stress of rigorous prosecution cross-examination.

Overall, the legal system is generally able to achieve just outcomes by ensuring the four factors are present, but in some cases the adverse factors negatively effect the legal system’s ability to do so.

The Chamberlain, Walsh Street and other trials show the fallibility of the legal system under certain circumstances. However, the public disquiet over injustices and continuing legislative reform seek to stop further injustices from occurring in the future. Arguably, without the assistance of those convinced of Lindy’s innocence, the Chamberlains’ convictions would still stand. In the Walsh Street trial, both elements of public concern and legislative review played an important part in seeking just outcomes in the future. Other cases like Condren, Birmingham Six , Guildford Four and Splatt also demonstrate that the legal system has flaws. In R v Condren, Mr Condren was forced to write a confession that was later disregarded after the real murderer confessed, hindering justice.

However, the mechanisms of the legal system ultimately work to achieve just outcomes. The Chamberlain case utilised the resources of many of the legal mechanisms available – the police force, court hierarchy, parliament and a Royal Commission. These mechanisms ensured that, eventually, a just outcome was reached and Lindy was released and compensated. This demonstrates the legal system’s ability to rectify initial errors of judgement which can occur.

Bibliography

Articles

• Azaria: six grounds for appeal, The Age, 10/11/82
• Azaria met death when attacked by a wild dingo, The Age, 21/2/81
• Baby that vanished in dingo country, The Age, 19/8/80
• How the Azaria case damaged justice, The Bulletin, 18/2/86
• Justice done in Chamberlain case, The Age, 16/9/88
• Publicity was a problem in trial, says Kirby, The Age, 4/4/84
• The Azaria Mystery, The Age, 17/1/81
• ‘We didn’t kill our baby’, Melbourne Truth, 6/9/80
• What the judges said, The Age, 30/4/83
• Conroy, P., Tobin, B., Statements from dock under review, The Age, 28/3/91
• Delianis, P., Thoughts on justice, after Walsh Street, The Age, 8/4/91
• Gowdie, C., Walsh St: the crime, the case, and the committal, The Age, 23/2/90
• Gregory, P., ‘Two for one’ pact to kill police, court told, The Age, 6/2/91
• Gregory, P., Court told witness playing God, The Age, 14/3/91
• Gregory, P., Man boasted of killing innocent policemen: QC, The Age, 7/2/91
• Gregory, P., The fatal flaw in the Walsh Street case, The Age, 30/3/91
• Gregory, P., Tobin, B., Jury finds four not guilty of killings, The Age, 27/3/91
• Gregory, P., Two accused say they slept as PCs were killed, The Age, 7/3/91
• Hitchings, B., Lawyer a man for all seasons, Herald-Sun, 16/12/95
• Innes, P., Chamberlains pardoned, The Age, 3/6/87
• Innes, P., Scientists’ errors could have been avoided, says Morling, The Age, 13/6/87
• Kevin Childs, The Age, 4/1/86
• MacDonald, J., Jury finds four not guilty of killings, The Age, 27/3/91
• Merkel, R., The Innocent, The Age, 23/7/91
• Murdoch, L, Azaria jury at Ayers Rock, The Age5/10/82
• Murdoch, L., Azaria mother gets life, The Age, 30/10/82
• Murdoch, L., Mother killed Azaria, SM told, The Age, 2/2/82
• Murdoch, L., Parents guilty and the wife gets life jail, The Age, 30/10/82
• Murdoch, L., Should Lindy go free?, The Age, 9/4/84
• Murdoch. L., Parents guilty on both charges, says jury, The Age, 30/10/82
• Noble, T., Walsh Street, The Age, 30/11/91
• O’Brien, J., The law should abolish ancient coward’s corner, The Age, 28/3/91
• Tobin, B., Greogry, P., Jury finds four not guilty of killings, The Age, 27/3/91
• Tobin, B., Inspector says verdict a total disappointment, The Age, 27/3/91
• Tobin, B., Mother comforted by belief in ‘higher justice’, The Age, 27/3/91

Books

• Beazer, M., 1997, Justice and Outcomes, Hodder Education, Melbourne
• Carrington, K. (et al), 1991, Travesty!, Pluto Press
• Findlay, M., Odgers, S., Yeo, S., 1994, Australian Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press
• Lewis, R., Was Justice Done?
• Case Studies: Azaria Chamberlain
• Legal Update, 1991

Film