Institutions maintain a system of regulations known as the law, which can be influenced by society, economics, or politics and are grounded in moral, ethical, and societal values. It is everyone’s duty to comprehend and abide by the law’s principles. Moreover, individuals possess entitlements like equitable procedures and legal aid access. Ultimately, acknowledging both individual rights and responsibilities is vital.
According to Aristotle, the concept of the rule of law emphasizes that everyone, including those in positions of power, must follow legal regulations. This means that if a law enforcement officer unlawfully causes someone’s death and thinks they can avoid accountability due to their profession, they are mistaken. However, it should be noted that this example is unrelated to the Waring case. Another important principle is procedural fairness, also known as natural justice. It applies when a decision could harm an individual’s rights, interests, and reasonable expectations.
To safeguard one’s rights and avoid adverse outcomes, it is crucial to establish procedural fairness. This encompasses providing an impartial platform for individuals to express their perspectives and receive information on accusations, along with the chance to respond. Additionally, it entails keeping them informed about the progress of any complaints filed. Regrettably, Patrick Waring was not granted adequate procedural fairness throughout his trial.
Patrick was detained and arrested by the police before his parents arrived at the station following accusations made against him. Despite a lack of evidence, the 15-year-old was treated as a criminal solely based on the testimony of a teenage girl. The Waring family recognized the unjust handling of the situation by WA’s legal system and had to enlist the assistance of a private investigator. This demonstrates Patrick’s unfair treatment and how it left the Waring family feeling neglected by the legal system, thereby contradicting procedural fairness.
The Waring family did retain a defense team, but procedural fairness defines the equitable treatment of all parties involved. There is a belief that Patrick may have been subjected to such treatment because of his gender and age. Society’s stereotype portrays a teenage boy as an ideal perpetrator in a rape case. The second principle of procedural fairness states that an individual should be treated impartially. Without conducting any investigations, the DPP presumed Patrick Waring’s guilt. Is this indicative of bias?
During the arrest, Patrick was deprived of accurate information regarding his alleged crime and was denied a chance to defend himself. The DPP intentionally isolated Patrick and prevented his parents from being present during questioning. Is this a fair process? The entire case relied solely on contradictory statements. The DPP unquestionably believed the girl’s allegations and arrested Patrick without gathering evidence beforehand. Regardless of whether you are the accuser or defendant, you have the right to legal recourse.
The Waring family, who previously claimed to have an average income, had to bear all the legal expenses themselves, unlike the complainant whose expenses were covered. This denial of access to justice led the Waring family to mortgage their house twice. Despite having a defense team, they felt that they were not fully availing themselves of their legal rights and thus sought assistance from Robin Napper. I apologize for lacking a textbook or an internet definition on the topic of access to law.
