The Supreme Court struck off Mr Rayney from practising law earlier this year.
All three published their decisions individually, saying they would not step aside on the grounds that Mr Rayney’s submissions “mischaracterised” and “misconceived” their roles and had “no ‘logical connection'” over their involvement in the disciplinary appeal decision.
Mr Rayney has launched an appeal over the awarded damages, arguing he could provide further evidence of significant earning losses caused by the murder investigation.
The three justices highlighted their impartiality on the grounds they had never had to consider the question of Mr Rayney’s earning capacity before, nor expressed any view on Mr Rayney’s credit on such matters, nor considered the evidence of Mr Rayney’s expert in the area.
They said they would reserve judgement on whether Mr Rayney would be allowed to cite more evidence on his earnings on appeal.
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.
Mr Rayney’s defamation barrister, Martin Bennett, said while there was no question over the Court of Appeal justices’ impartiality as judges, the issue was how the average citizen could perceive the outcome and it simply “wouldn’t pass the pub test”.
At the time, 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 SAT found he had breached his profession by secretly recording his wife’s conversations before her death and engaged in dishonest behaviour.
Ms Young said the DPP intended to cross-examine Mr Rayney.
Mr Rayney was not present at September’s Court of Appeal hearing.
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.
The original article incorrectly called Martin Bennett a Queen’s counsel.
Aja Styles is a digital culture editor for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.