The Alpha and the Omega

The Alpha and the Omega; the beginning and the end

The first day:

*****************************************

Nineteen years old, and I feel the muscles in my neck stretch.

The last day:

Click to play audio

Note: Audio playback requires Microsoft Word on a computer. Audio playback is not supported in Word Online or mobile viewers.

But this was not the only concern I had with the jury.

In 1998 Estelle Blackburne passed on a letter she had received from one of the jury members of my trial. In it, this paragraph. 

At my appeal, we intended to argue that I had been unlawfully excluded from part of my trial, but as we had enough evidence to win, it was dropped.

However, last year I decided to push for recognition of this breach of the law and again turned to LIA.

One-Line Legal ConclusionIn 1963, Western Australia, it was procedurally irregular and potentially unlawful for the prosecution to conduct a crime scene demonstration for the jury—especially one explaining how you allegedly committed the crime—without your knowledge, presence, or a record in the trial transcript.

Key Legal Issues / Elements

• Right to be present at trial

• Admissibility of crime scene inspections or demonstrations

• Jury's exposure to unsworn or untested representations

• Transcript completeness and appeal rights

• Breach of natural justice / procedural fairness

Legal Reasoning & Procedural History Context

In 1963 WA, criminal trials followed common law traditions supplemented by the WA Criminal Code. The accused had a near-absolute right to be present during all material aspects of the trial—including any crime scene visits or reconstructions. A judge could permit a jury “view” of the crime scene, but this had to be:

• Ordered on record

• Conducted under court supervision

• In the presence of the accused and counsel

• With judicial instructions to prevent evidentiary contamination

If a crime scene reconstruction occurred where the jury was shown or told "exactly how" you committed the crime, and this took place without your knowledge, without your presence, and off-record, it would raise grave procedural fairness and appeal concerns.

This would likely constitute a miscarriage of justice and breach of your right to a fair trial under both WA law and developing common law standards.

LIA then drafted a letter:

Dear FOI Coordinator,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA), I respectfully request access to any and all documents relating to the jury viewing conducted during my 1963 trial for the alleged manslaughter of Rosemary Margaret Anderson (Supreme Court of WA – Button v R).

Specifically, I seek:

1.     Records or orders relating to any “jury view” or jury transport to the crime scene;

2.     Any judicial instructions, transport arrangements, or security memoranda for the jury;

3.     Documents indicating the presence or absence of the trial judge, prosecution, defence counsel, and myself during any such viewing;

4.     Notations, transcripts, or minutes relating to what was said to the jury during the viewing;

5.     Any departmental, prosecutorial, or police documentation pertaining to the conduct or planning of the jury view;

6.     Court or registry records from the 1963 trial noting the logistics or approval of the viewing.

If some records are no longer held or were archived with the State Records Office, please confirm their location or transfer status so I may follow up accordingly.

I am happy to pay reasonable fees associated with search and reproduction and to narrow or clarify the scope of this request as needed.

Yours sincerely,John Button

LIA also drafted a letter to the records office:

Subject: Request for Access to Jury View Records – Supreme Court Trial 1963 (Button v R)

Dear Records Officer,

I am seeking access to archived materials relating to my 1963 criminal trial (Supreme Court of Western Australia), in which I was convicted of the manslaughter of Rosemary Margaret Anderson. That conviction was later quashed in Button v The Queen [2002] WASCA 35.

Specifically, I request:

1.     Records of any “jury view” or crime scene visit conducted during the trial;

2.     Transcripts, memoranda, or judicial notations indicating whether a jury view occurred and who was present;

3.     Orders or permissions issued by the court regarding a viewing;

4.     Any documentation held by the Court or law enforcement relating to the logistics or substance of the jury’s visit to the crime scene.

This request is made in good faith for legal and historical review purposes. Please advise if any records have been transferred, digitised, or require in-person access.

I am willing to pay reproduction fees or assist with narrowing the search parameters.

Yours sincerely,John Button

These letters were sent on the 9th December 2025. As of today, not even an acknowledgement, so again LIA has drafted the next letter:

 Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to formally notify you that your respective offices are in breach of the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA), in relation to my written FOI requests submitted on 9 December 2025, concerning records from my 1963 trial (Button v R), specifically relating to any jury viewing of the crime scene.

As of the date of this letter, no acknowledgement, response, or statutory extension notice has been received from either office, in direct contravention of:

• Section 13(1) – which requires that access applications be dealt with “as soon as practicable and in any event within 45 days”; and

• Section 14 – which requires acknowledgment and procedural compliance.

This delay constitutes a failure of statutory obligation under the Act and interferes with my rights to access historical and potentially exculpatory court documents.

Accordingly, I request the following within 7 days:

1.     Formal acknowledgment of my FOI request;

2.     Explanation for the delay and statutory breach;

3.     Immediate estimate of the current processing status and anticipated response date.

If no satisfactory response is received within 7 days of this notice, I will escalate the matter via:

• A formal complaint to the Western Australian Information Commissioner under s.66 of the Act; and

• A further complaint to the WA Ombudsman for systemic administrative failure.

Given the legal and historical importance of the records sought, I trust this matter will now be treated with the urgency and statutory diligence it deserves.

Yours sincerely,John Button

The wait continues.