The rule of Law establishes the way Australia is governed. The law should be applied to all people equally and fairly, no matter what race, gender or age. Within Australia people have the right to a fair trial and are judged by their peers. They also have the right to be told what the law means so that it is certain and clear for all people equally no matter their cultural background, religious or economic status. In Australia the rule of law allows all people to have independent legal advice and to be presumed innocent and to have a fair and public trial. Within society, all people should be treated with respect and dignity and all states must follow their legal obligations.

In the Bernard Finnigan case there were several aspects of the Rule of Law that were upheld. Finnigan was clear and certain as to what the law meant and would have known that he was committing an offence. Although in court his defense lawyer, Michael Abbott was suggesting that Finnigan wasn’t deliberately searching for the illegal content. It was clear in the article that the law was …show more content…
If Finnigan’s lawyers chose to leave the case, the rule of law could not have been upheld and he would not have been able to receive fair and just representation. Finnigan had become a pariah in society and was shunned by anyone who knew him which meant that it was difficult to uphold all components of the Rule of Law. In conclusion, the Bernard Finnigan case demonstrated the features of the Rule of Law that were seen to be followed and also those that were not upheld. All aspects of the Rule of Law should be followed by all parties. In some cases, when it is not followed it can lead to an unfair trial and people who are criminals can use the mistrial to avoid a goal