At the request of the defendant in October 2011, Former
Northern Territory Chief Justice
Brian Ross Martin was appointed as an Acting Justice of the Western Australia Supreme Court in February 2012 to preside over the trial; a judge from outside Western Australia being used to ensure impartiality, given that both the victim and accused had held senior legal positions in the state. The trial began on 16 July 2012. An
affidavit filed by the prosecutors indicated that the case was circumstantial. The prosecutor's opening address to the trial said that the state's case was circumstantial but the evidence of motive was compelling. The prosecution hypothesised that Lloyd Rayney had killed his wife at the family home in
Como, then dragging her along the driveway to her car, driving to Kings Park, burying her body, abandoning her car, and returning home. The circumstantial evidence presented included a dinner place card with Lloyd Rayney's name found near the burial site, brick dust and soil that was allegedly consistent with being dragged along a driveway, and
liquidambar seed pods found in her hair that were alleged to match a tree at the family home which was not present in Kings Park. The prosecution also presented evidence that the Rayneys' marriage had broken down irretrievably due to Lloyd Rayney's affairs and gambling habits, having lost nearly $50,000 to
Centrebet between April 2006 and July 2007. It was alleged that she had recently "put her husband on notice that if he did not disclose his finances, she would have his clients, from whom he received legal fees, subpoenaed", and that he had been secretly recording her phone calls and conversations. On 1 November, Justice Martin acquitted Lloyd Rayney when he handed down a judgment of
not guilty, saying that the "case by the State is beset by improbabilities and uncertainties". The trial judge closely examined evidence on the conduct of Lloyd Rayney and reportedly described him as a barrister who had engaged in "disreputable conduct" in comments which were
redacted from the final official judgment (para 1594), and Justice Martin noted that "The accused has engaged in discreditable conduct including knowingly arranging for illegal telephone interception, making a false declaration and giving deliberately false evidence to a court while on oath. The evidence raises suspicion; in some instances quite strong suspicion. But discreditable conduct does not prove guilt, and suspicion, even strong suspicion, falls well short of proof beyond reasonable doubt." ==Appeal==