The conspicuous circumstances leading to the murder of Allison Baden-Clay were imperative to the severity of the trial and sentence Baden-Clay received. Prior to Allison’s death, Baden-Clay engaged in an ongoing affair and desired a long term relationship with his mistress; however, due to financial pressure a divorce with Allison was complex (Faster Coast Chronicle, 2014). In accordance to this, Allison was reported missing by Baden-Clay ten days prior to her body being located, ten kilometres from the family home (ABCNews, 2016). The profound scratches on his face and his calculated demeanour contributed to the suspicion of his innocence. The criminal trial was prolonged over two years and experienced a unique re-sentencing period after two appeals were sought (Daily Mail, 2014). Baden-Clay was eventually determined guilty after new evidence was found and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fifteen year non-parole period. The processes of the Australian criminal justice system played a significant role in the incarceration and sentencing of the renowned Baden-Clay case. In order to conduct a fair trial the standard of proof is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt, a compelling strength of the Australian justice system (Australian Law Reform Commission, Nd). Subsequently, the evidence in the Baden-Clay proved highly circumstantial, making it exceptionally difficult to draw informed conclusions that Baden-Clay intentionally killed his wife (ABC News, 2014). Baden-Clay was ultimately determined guilty due to the foliage found in Allison’s hair from the family home, which determined her body was relocated from the crime scene. This proved to be a coherent weakness within the trial process of the justice system as new evidence was found and an appeal was required meaning the case used additional time and court resources. Prior to this the defence attempted to negate Baden-Clays intention to murder his wife through financial motives and relationship with his mistress, strengthening his case yet is a considerable weakness to the system as he was able to manipulate his initial intention to murder wife (Brisbane Times, 2017). If the evidence was not discovered Baden-Clay would have successfully downgraded his murder charge to manslaughter, thus limiting the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in securing just outcomes for offenders. The rights of the accused are a crucial aspect in order for a fair trial to commence; however, in the Baden-Clay case he was denied a non-biased trial due to the heavy media coverage, in which the Australian public quickly perceived him as a cold-blooded murderer. …show more content…
As a result the jury had a preconceived idea of his character, likewise, the Azaria Chamberlin v R case in which Lindy Chamberlin was assumed guilty due to her emotionless appearance, comparable to Baden-Clay (Networked Knowledge Law Reports, Nd). Therefore, his right to a fair trial was sacrificed through the jury; however the judge and legal counsels have the position and expertise to apply law beyond public sentiment, ensuring Baden-Clay was sentenced justly disregarding the extensive media coverage. The right to a fair trial is a highly important aspect to the justice system as it allows equality and predictability (News.com.au, 2015). Consequently, in the case of Baden-Clay this is ultimately a strength of the justice system as the prosecution successfully issued an appropriate murder conviction through the influence of the media on the jury. The Australian justice system generally upholds the rights of the accused to a high standard in which, Australian citizens are guaranteed a fair and just trial. However, the presence of media is unavoidable and the rights of the accused are oftentimes jeopardised. The doctrine of precedent is paramount to ensure fair rulings and to promote fairness throughout cases which share simular aspects (Lawgovpol, 2014). Precedents