The Mickelbergs Court Case
INTRODUCTION
In HASS we have been learning about the principles of justice and how it is upheld in the Australian legal system. We also got assigned to pick a case. I studied the Mickelbergs court case and analysed how the principals of justice effect my case. We also had to do a research table where we had to explain each principle of justice then we had to discuss whether it was supported or compromised in our case. Then we started constructing an essay about our case and the principles of justice and how they supported or compromised the case. We had to construct 3 paragraphs about our case.
What is the Mickelberg Case?
On the 22 of June 1983, the Perth Mint was robbed. 49 bars of Gold were stolen. Now before this case Brian, Raymond and Peter Mickelberg had already been accused of defrauding millionaire Alan Bond by giving him a phony gold nugget. So, when the Perth Mint was robbed the Mickelbergs were the police’s prime suspects. Then the 3 went to trial and were found guilty because apparently the police found cheques that the bothers stole and fooled the Perth mint into accepting these cheques in exchange for gold. In 1983 the 3 were sentenced to jail for 20, 16 and 12 years. Then in 1989 Brain Mickelberg died in a helicopter accident at the age of 39yr. Raymond and Peter then made 8 appeals and 5 attempts to have their convictions overturned – 3 appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal, at which Mr Lewandowski and Mr Hancock testified, and an appeal to the High Court. Also, in 1989 55kg of gold pellets were found outside the channel 7 gates with a note saying the Mickelbergs were innocent. Then In 2004 finally the police confessed that the evidence was fabricated by the police, and that the police physically abused the Mickelbergs into confessing a crime they didn’t commit. This was due to the act of police corruption. In 2004 their appeal was upheld and their convictions were quashed, and they were set free. The Perth mint swindle case is still unsolved till this very day. And now the Mickelbergs are still trying to sue the government for money they lost whilst in jail.
What Are The Principles of Justice?
The principles of justice are several key principles or beliefs, that are designed to help protect the rights of all Australian Citizens. There are a number of principles that are designed for people to be treated equality, protected and that our Australian legal system is fair and unbiased. Our Australian Legal system is based on key principles which helps our legal system to be fair for everyone. The key principles of justice are; All individuals are equal before the law, Individuals have the right to a fair hearing, The Judiciary (the court system) is independent and impartial, Individuals have the right to a reasonable appeal, Individuals have the right to remain silent when questioned, the presumption of innocence when walking into the court unless proven guilty and there must be high Quality evidence. This means that in court people must be treated equally regardless of their culture, income level etc. the court must hear arguments from both sides of an issue. When presented in the court there must be relevant and reliable evidence and the victim must be treated as if they are innocent until proven guilty. And nobody not even the government is above the law. These principles are important because without them we wouldn’t have a proper Australian legal system.
Right to Appeal
The Mickelbergs had the right to appeal, and they did 7 times until the police confessed that the evidence was fabricated. So, an example like this is important because without the principles of justice declaring that they had a right to appeal the Mickelbergs would’ve had to go back to jail for another 10 years. These principles demonstrates that without them people would have an unfair experience with the court and that people wouldn’t be able to solve their problems whether it’s a civil matter or just a local problem. Through an investigation of the Mickelbergs case, it was shown that without the principles of justice the Mickelbergs would have gone back to jail for a crime they didn’t do.
Relevant and Reliable Evidence
In the Mickelbergs case the principles of justice that were compromised related to the presentation in court of reliable evidence. High quality evidence means, people from both sides can only present relevant and reliable evidence to the court. So, the court case is based on appropriate and accurate information. Evidence also can’t be secondhand and inaccurate, otherwise it is untrustworthy to the court. For example, Past criminal record of the person did/didn’t do the crime is usually not to be raised as evidence because it could potentially bias that court case. In the Mickelbergs case the trustworthy evidence was compromised as the policed gave the court fabricated evidence which ended up putting the wrong people in jail. The evidence the Police gave was the fake cheques that the brothers apparently stole from the Perth building society then fooled the Perth mint into accepting those cheques into gold bullion. They proved this in court by showing that one of the brothers (Raymond) left fingerprints on the cheques which they fabricated because the head of police back then was corrupt. One of Raymond Mickelbergs hobbies was making hand models and statues and he also made one of his own hand models. This was how the police got the fabricated fingerprints. The court ended up believing this evidence and sending all three brothers to jail. Even though the high-quality evidence was fabricated by the police. The police also ended up physically abusing one of the brothers into admitting that he stole from the Perth mint. This coercion ended up leading to a forced confession. After that the three brothers were sent to jail. The police and the court should have listened to both sides of the argument, and they should have examined more closely, the fabricated evidence, and the policed should have admitted earlier about the evidence. Overall, the principle High quality evidence was compromised due to the fact the police fabricated the evidence and they forced and beat Raymond Mickelberg while questioning him and making him confess.
Presumption of Innocence Until Proven Guilty
Another element that was compromised in the Mickelbergs case, of a principal justice, was the presumption of innocence until proven guilty when walking into the court. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the verdict must be treated as if the person is innocent until proven guilty from the moment, they are charged with a crime to their court hearing or trial. This includes having the right to be free to return home and live within the community unless the judge thinks that the criminal is dangerous to the community. In the Mickelbergs case the presumption of innocence until proven guilty was compromised. This was because when the police fabricated the evidence it was already clear that they believed the Mickelbergs were guilty, so the court acted like they were guilty and then sent them to jail. So, the judge assumed they were guilty because of the fabricated evidence from the police. This was unfair for the brothers and biased in the media, which did have an impact on the case as the media kept saying that the Mickelbergs did it before they even went to court and no other side of the case was looked at. This ended up being unfair to the Mickelberg Brothers as they shouldn’t have gone to jail. But the court did let the Mickelbergs go home while still deciding on the case, but they weren’t at home for long as the decision was very quick. So, the Court should have seen them as innocent when walking into the court until they were proven guilty. As well as they should have looked at both sides of the case. As the brothers kept saying that the police had faked the evidence and they didn’t do the crime. And they ended up being right and only got paid a little compensation for the wrong doings of the court. The court also shouldn’t have been influenced by the media. Overall, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty when walking in the court was compromised because the court already had made their decision before the Mickelbergs had walked into the court and they didn’t hear both sides of the case, as well as the media getting involved in a biased way.
Conclusion
In Conclusion I believe that all three principals of justice that I have presented were evident in my case of the Perth Mint Swindle and most of them were compromised throughout the case. By not following the principals of justice the Mickelbergs brother’s lives were destroyed by corrupt Police and a Court that didn’t do their job properly. This case is still being fought through the courts to this very day and it has been devastating for the Mickelbergs brothers.
In the Photo is Don Hancock who fabricated the evidence
Here is a website to one of the Mickelbergs Videos about the case
