The Criminal Justice System
-
This case note examines the trial of Greg Lynn, highlighting how jury decision‑making, evidentiary safeguards, and judicial independence protect fairness in serious criminal cases. It shows how the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt shaped the split verdict, illustrating core rule‑of‑law principles in practice.
-
This case note outlines how Kathleen Folbigg’s convictions were overturned after new genetic evidence cast doubt on earlier findings, highlighting the limits of forensic science, the impact of media prejudice, and the importance of appeals and judicial inquiries in correcting miscarriages of justice. It shows how evolving scientific knowledge and robust review mechanisms are essential to upholding fairness and the rule of law.
-
This case note examines how intense media attention, especially The Teacher’s Pet podcast, interacted with the legal process in the Chris Dawson trial. It highlights the safeguards courts use to protect fair‑trial rights in high‑profile cases, the difficulties of prosecuting decades‑old offences using circumstantial evidence, and the law reforms that followed, including NSW’s “no body, no parole” legislation.
-
This case note outlines how Keli Lane was convicted of murdering her newborn despite the absence of a body, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence and credibility findings. It highlights key rule‑of‑law issues, including non‑disclosure of evidence, media influence, and the challenges of ensuring a fair trial in complex, high‑profile cases
-
This case note examines the Skaf brothers’ prosecutions, highlighting how sentencing principles, jury misconduct, and parole decisions tested core rule‑of‑law safeguards. It shows how courts balanced the gravity of the offences with proportionality, totality, and fair‑trial requirements, demonstrating that even in the most serious cases, legal processes and rights must be applied equally and consistently.
-
This case note explains how Gerard Baden‑Clay’s conviction moved through multiple appeal stages, highlighting how circumstantial evidence, the presumption of innocence, and the right to appeal operate in serious criminal cases. It shows how the High Court reinstated the murder conviction, reinforcing the importance of jury reasoning, proper appellate limits, and rule‑of‑law safeguards in high‑profile trials
-
This case note explains how Bradley Edwards was convicted of two Claremont murders based on DNA, fibre, and propensity evidence in a judge‑alone trial, while being acquitted of a third due to insufficient proof. It highlights key rule‑of‑law principles, including the presumption of innocence, the high standard of proof, open justice, and the safeguards that ensure fairness even in highly publicised, complex cases.
-
This case summary explains how the High Court unanimously quashed George Pell’s convictions after finding a significant possibility of reasonable doubt, emphasising the prosecution’s burden of proof and the need for verdicts to align with unchallenged evidence. It highlights key rule‑of‑law principles, including the presumption of innocence, proper appellate review, and the requirement that guilt be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
-
This case study examines the manslaughter conviction of Senior Constable Kristian White for tasering 95‑year‑old Clare Nowland, highlighting key rule‑of‑law principles including the presumption of innocence, judicial independence, fair‑trial rights, and proportional sentencing. It also explores broader issues around police duty of care, media influence, bail decisions, and how courts balance community expectations with due process.
-
Explores how judicial discretion ensures proportionate sentencing by allowing courts to weigh the unique circumstances of an offence and offender. Using RDS v Luplau, it illustrates how appeal courts correct excessive sentences and why rigid penalties, such as COVID‑19 breach penalties, must still be applied with fairness and attention to mitigating factors.
Case Note: The Claremont Killings
The State of Western Australia v Edwards [No 7] [2020] WASC 339
Warning: this Case Note contains references to harm. If this causes any distress, contact Lifeline (13 11 14) or Kids Helpline (1800 55 1800)
Pre-Learning Questions
Why might a judge‑alone trial be used instead of a jury trial in high‑profile or complex criminal matters?
What challenges arise when a court must decide a case where one alleged victim’s body has never been found?
How does the right to silence protect an accused person, and why is it important for maintaining fairness in the justice system?
Facts of the case
Between 1996 and 1997, three young women – Ciara Glennon, Sarah Spiers and Jane Rimmer – disappeared from the popular night spot of Claremont in Perth, Western Australia. The bodies of Ms Glennon and Ms Rimmer were later found, while Ms Spiers’ body has never been located and she is presumed dead. These events became known as the Claremont serial killings and gripped the Western Australian community for more than two decades.
On 22 December 2016, Bradley Robert Edwards was arrested and charged under s 278 of the Criminal Code (WA) with the wilful murders of Ms Rimmer and Ms Glennon. In 2018, he was further charged with the wilful murder of Ms Spiers. Edwards pleaded not guilty to all three charges.
For Edwards to found guilty wilful murder, the State was required to prove each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt:
that the accused killed the named person (Actus Reus);
that the killing was unlawful; and
that the accused intended to cause death (Mens Rea).
Actus Reus refers to the physical act of committing the crime. It must be voluntary (not under duress) and can include an omission or failure to act. Mens Rea refers to the mental state of the accused – the “guilty mind”. Under Western Australian law, the prosecution must establish that the accused intended to cause the death of his victims in order to prove wilful murder.
Pre-Trial
In Australia, trial by one’s peers in the form of a jury trial is a constitutional right only for indictable offences against the Commonwealth, under section 80 of the Australian Constitution. For State offences (such as the Claremont murders) jury trials are created and regulated by State legislation, not the Constitution.
In every Australian jurisdiction except Victoria, the ACT, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, the accused or the State can apply for a judge‑alone trial. This option is typically used where there are concerns about impartiality and the need to ensure a fair trial due to extensive media coverage or highly technical evidence. In the Claremont case, four reasons were identified for having the matter heard by a judge alone.
These were:
the extent of pre-trial publicity;
the likely length of the trial;
the graphic and disturbing nature of the evidence; and
the technical or complex nature of expert evidence proposed to be presented.
The Prosecution, with the agreement of the Defence, applied for a judge‑alone trial under s 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), and the application was granted.
As a result, the case was heard by Justice Hall without a jury. In a judge‑alone trial, the presiding judge is responsible for applying the relevant legal principles and procedural rules, assessing all of the evidence, making findings of fact, and ultimately delivering the verdict.
The Trial
The Prosecution’s case relied heavily on DNA, forensic evidence and propensity evidence. A key element was the discovery of the accused’s DNA beneath Ms Glennon’s fingernails. The Prosecution argued that it was deposited during a violent struggle shortly before her death. Justice Hall accepted this explanation and emphasised the critical importance of the DNA evidence, finding beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to Edwards and that the Prosecution’s account of how it was transferred was correct.
The Prosecution also presented fibre evidence showing that both Ms Rimmer and Ms Glennon had been inside a VS Holden Commodore (vehicles commonly driven by Telstra employees). Edwards was employed by Telstra at the time, and the Prosecution argued that he had driven the vehicle from which the fibres originated. Justice Hall accepted this evidence.
The case also involved propensity evidence, a form of circumstantial evidence that suggests a person tends to act in a particular way based on past behaviour. The Prosecution relied on three earlier assaults to argue that Edwards had a tendency to attack women. Justice Hall cautioned that such evidence must be carefully scrutinised, noting:
“Propensity evidence may be relevant in determining whether a particular person is more likely to be the perpetrator of a crime, but it must be carefully scrutinised and does not alone prove the guilt of the accused.”
This reinforced that past behaviour cannot, on its own, satisfy the high threshold of proof required in a criminal trial.
In relation to Ms Glennon and Ms Rimmer, Justice Hall found significant and compelling similarities in the circumstances of their disappearances and deaths. Combined with the DNA, fibre and propensity evidence, His Honour concluded:
“having regard to the DNA evidence, the fibre evidence and the propensity evidence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the killer of Ms Rimmer and Ms Glennon”.
However, the Prosecution’s argument regarding Ms Spiers (whose body has never been found) was not accepted. Although there were similarities between her disappearance and the other two murders, Justice Hall found these similarities were more general and far fewer in number. His Honour held that he could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the same person who killed Ms Rimmer and Ms Glennon also killed Ms Spiers.
Justice Hall therefore found Bradley Edwards guilty of the murders of Ms Glennon and Ms Rimmer, but not guilty of the murder of Ms Spiers. Edwards was later sentenced in 2020 to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 40 years for the two wilful murders.
Application of rule of law principles
1. The law is applied equally and fairly
A core principle of the rule of law is that the law applies equally to everyone, no matter how serious, complex or high‑profile the case may be. The Claremont trial attracted intense media attention and involved an enormous volume of evidence over more than six months. As Justice Hall observed:
“This is a trial like no other. This is a trial like every other. Those apparently irreconcilable statements are both true.”[1]
His comment highlights that, despite the unusual features of the case, the same fundamental principles that govern every criminal trial applied here. Justice Hall emphasised that courts do not deliver different standards of justice based on publicity or public interest:
“The promise of equal justice before the law required that this trial, like all criminal trials, be conducted with care to ensure fairness to both the defence and the prosecution.”
2. The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof
Every criminal trial begins with the presumption that the accused is innocent. The burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, which must establish each element of the offence. Justice Hall made this clear:
“an accused person does not have to prove his or her innocence, indeed he or she does not have to prove anything. The onus is on the State from start to finish. It never shifts to the accused”.
The prosecution must meet the highest standard known to the law - proof beyond reasonable doubt. As Justice Hall stated:
“The accused was presumed innocent, the State bore the onus of proof and the standard of proof was beyond reasonable doubt”.
Only when all elements are proven beyond reasonable doubt can an accused be found guilty. This principle was central to Edwards being acquitted of Ms Spiers’ murder. Although the prosecution argued that similarities between her disappearance and the other two murders pointed to Edwards’ guilt, Justice Hall found the evidence insufficient:
“It is only if all elements are proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused can be found guilty of a particular charge...
A possibility or even a probability in that regard is not enough to support a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt”.
This reinforces how demanding the standard is, and why an accused must be found not guilty whenever the threshold is not met.
3. The judicial system is independent, impartial, open and transparent and provides a fair and prompt trial.
The rule of law requires a judicial system that is independent, impartial and transparent. In a judge‑alone trial such as this one, the judge must clearly set out the legal principles applied, the findings of fact, and the reasoning that leads to the verdict. The judgment is publicly available and open to scrutiny, including through the appeals process.
Justice Hall also reflected on the importance of open justice:
“Access by the media is an important part of ensuring justice is not only done but seen to be done. Whilst the court was open to the public, the media played an important role in ensuring that those who were unable to attend could remain informed as to the progress of the trial.”
This transparency strengthens public confidence in the fairness of the judicial process.
4.The Right to Silence
In Australia, an accused person has the right to silence from the moment of arrest until the conclusion of their trial. They are not required to speak to police or give evidence, although they may choose to do so. Edwards exercised this right and did not testify.
The right to silence reinforces the burden of proof: it is the State’s responsibility to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Importantly, an accused’s silence cannot be used as evidence against them, nor can it support any adverse inference. This protection ensures that the prosecution must rely solely on the strength of its evidence, not on whether the accused chooses to speak.
Watch the judgement of Bradley Robert Edwards:
Related Resources
-
This explainer outlines the importance of an independent judiciary, showing how courts must be free from political pressure, external influence, and improper interference. It highlights how judicial independence protects individual rights, supports impartial decision‑making, and maintains public confidence in a justice system governed by law rather than power.
-
This explainer outlines how evidence is gathered, assessed, and admitted in criminal trials, showing how strict rules ensure only reliable, relevant, and lawfully obtained material is considered by the court. It highlights the different types of evidence, the role of police and prosecutors in preparing a brief of evidence, and how judges and juries evaluate admissibility and weight to protect fairness, prevent wrongful convictions, and uphold due process.
Explore Related Topics
-
Fair and Prompt Trials
Explore resources on fair and prompt trials, showing how timely hearings and procedural fairness protect justice and public confidence.
-
Courts
Explore resources on courts, outlining the court hierarchy and providing Law Day Out materials and to support classroom understanding.
-
Presumption of Innocence
Explore resources on the presumption of innocence, showing how the burden of proof protects accused people and safeguards fairness in criminal justice.