Australia’s Principles of Justice ensure that we receive a “fair share” of benefits and burdens and that all are treated equally. Examples of Principles of Justice are the Right to a fair trial, the Right to an appeal, Equality before the law, the Judiciary being independent and impartial, etc. This case is about a man named Andrew Mallard who in 1994 was convicted of murdering Mosman Park jeweller Pamela Lawrence, who suffered severe head injuries. He had been out on the street and had been questioned due to his peculiar behaviour (later it would be found out that this was due to his mental state/illnesses), becoming one of the 136 early suspects.
He was sentenced to life in confinement due to evidence/information being concealed by Police. In the case of Andrew Mallard, the Principles of Justice were upheld to a limited extent. Examples of Principles of Justice being upheld include the right to appeal, being that he was able to appeal the decision of the Judiciary. Examples of Principles of Justice not being upheld include the right to a fair hearing and that all individuals are equal before the law. These laws were not upheld meaning that Andrew Mallard did not have a fair hearing and he was not equal before the law.
The right to appeal allows the defendant or prosecution who is dissatisfied with the outcome of their case to appeal the decision made by the judiciary or have their case reviewed by a higher court, providing that they can prove reasonable grounds for an appeal to be granted. This is important as people who did not commit the crime (in their case) or feels that their case was not reviewed correctly, can file an appeal and have their case looked at by a higher court rather than spending time in confinement or losing a case and jeopardising someone else’s life. For example, in the Andrew Mallard case, after many failed attempts he was granted an appeal after the court acknowledged that “the case was riddled with inconsistencies” and on the 15th of November 2006, the High Court of Australia overturned Andrew Mallard’s murder conviction. But, because of evidence being withheld by police, Andrew Mallard wasn’t able to justify his case and file an approved appeal. Only when the High Court of Australia acknowledged that “the case was riddled with inconsistencies” did they accept his filed appeal. A way of protecting the right to appeal is to not conceal evidence from the judiciary. These instances show that the right to appeal was upheld and undermined in the Andrew Mallard trial.
The right to a fair hearing states that everyone must be treated fairly before the courts and tribunals. In the case of any criminal accusation against them or the assessment of their rights and obligations in a legal situation, everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing before a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law. The right to a fair hearing is important because both sides of the case must present their evidence, otherwise, the case would sway to only one side if they were only able to speak. For example, in the case of Andrew Mallard, the judge gave him and the prosecution a chance to speak. Although this occurred, Andrew Mallard had a mental disability called schizophrenia which made his mind unable to think properly. Sadly, in the case he did not receive any help during the trial. One way of protecting the right to a fair hearing is to make everyone equal from the start. For example, if someone is incompatible of thinking among the standards of others, they can be given help from a 3rd party source. As we can see from the evidence presented, the right to a fair hearing was supported to a limited extent in the case of Andrew Mallard.
An independent and unbiased judiciary infers that the judiciary must base their decision (guilty/not guilty) on the evidence that they have been presented with from both sides (prosecution/defendant) and no other mean. Being independent implies that the courts are apart from the elected legislature and administration, allowing judges and magistrates to make judgments without interference from these authorities. Our legal system benefits from having an independent court because it ensures that no one, including the government, is above the law. This is important as if the judiciary is swayed by evidence from a third-party source, which is incorrect, it could jeopardise another person’s life. The Andrew Mallard case serves as an illustration. Because the case was made public before the trial, the media had already published blogs about it that circulated inaccurate information. The numerous websites that offer rumours and hypotheses on why he was guilty might serve as an example of this. These social media rumours are used as evidence by the authorities. Despite the fact that this occurred the judge told the jury to strictly base their decision on the evidence presented to them from the trial, judging by the fact that they clearly did not. An appropriate way to protect this right is to not make the case open to the public before the trial occurred, due to the events that took place because of this. These examples show that in the case of Andrew Mallard, the right to an independent and unbiased judiciary was mostly compromised, but supported a little by the judge.
As a result of the numerous issues with the sentencing procedure and rights not being supported, it is obvious that justice was upheld to a limited extent in the case of Andrew Mallard. This was demonstrated by the fact that just one fundamental of justice—the right to a reasonable appeal was respected, while the other two, the right to a fair trial, and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary were both violated. This resulted in Mallard’s erroneous conviction and punishment, a problem that might have been readily fixed by making small changes to the case. Without a doubt, there was a miscarriage of justice in this instance.