Call for fresh ears to Lloyd Rayney's pleas for more money
The lawyer for former criminal barrister Lloyd Rayney has asked three Court of Appeal justices to remove themselves from hearing whether or not Mr Rayney deserves more money than the $2.62 million awarded him after being cleared over the murder of his wife.
Mr Rayney, who has been struck off from practising law, has launched an appeal over the awarded damages on the grounds he could provide further evidence of significant earning losses caused by the murder investigation.
Lloyd Rayney continues to seek compensation for the damages he suffered over his wife's murder trial.Credit:Nine News Perth
Mr Rayney was charged two years after the body of his wife, Supreme Court registrar Corryn Rayney, was discovered in a shallow grave in Kings Park in 2007.
In 2012, Supreme Court acting justice Brian Martin acquitted Mr Rayney in a judge-alone trial, and Mr Rayney successfully sued the state in 2017 over the substantial loss of salary and reputation he suffered after WA Police named him "the prime and only suspect" during their murder investigation.
Now Mr Rayney's barrister, prominent defamation Queen's counsel Martin Bennett, is seeking for the Court of Appeal president Michael Buss and justices Graeme Murphy and Edwin Corboy to step aside in the damages appeal due to concerns over what the average person may perceive as bias in the case.
All three judges have participated in previous court hearings relating to the Rayney case.
Mr Bennett said while there was no question over their impartiality as judges, the issue was how the average citizen could perceive the outcome and it simply "wouldn't pass the pub test".
Barrister for the Department of Public Prosecutions, Rachael Young, said while the state did not support or oppose Mr Bennett's application, it did contest the evidence and reasons for the appeal.
She argued it was reasonable to draw the conclusion that as a criminal barrister Mr Rayney would not have been awarded work while he faced trial for murder, and that work would have dried up the moment he was charged on December 8, 2010.
The issue of Mr Rayney's credibility was also up for scrutiny, according to Ms Young, after the State Administrative Tribunal found he had breached his profession by secretly recording his wife's conversations before her death and engaged in dishonest behaviour.
The Supreme Court struck off Mr Rayney from practising law earlier this year.
Ms Young said if the appeal was to be heard then it should go before a general trial judge and the DPP did intend to cross-examine Mr Rayney.
Mr Rayney was not present at the Court of Appeal hearing.
The three appeal justices have reserved their decision about whether or not to step aside.
Earlier this year, Mr Rayney launched a second defamation trial against the case's lead forensic investigator Mark Reynolds, which Supreme Court justice Jennifer Hill has yet to determine.
Mrs Rayney's killer has yet to be found and Mr Rayney cares for their two daughters.