In Australia, our legal and court system has many principles that are used to maintain justice and ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity regarding legal disputes. These principles of justice include: All individuals being equal before the law, individuals having the right to a fair hearing, the judiciary being independent and impartial, individuals having the right to appeal, individuals, having the right to silence, the presumption of innocence, and high-quality evidence. However, in some cases, there will be injustices with these principles being compromised. To examine these principles in action, I studied the case of a wrongfully convicted man, Andrew Mallard.
In 1995, 33-year-old Andrew Mallard was wrongfully convicted for the alleged murder of Pamela Lawrence, on May 23rd, 1994. Pamela was a Jeweller who worked in a small jewellery store in Mosman Park, she was brutally murdered in her store and Andrew mallard became the prime suspect in her case. Most of the principles of justice were compromised, but all individuals are equal before the law, individuals have the right to silence, and high-quality evidence were the main principles that were not upheld. After a lot of hard work and various appeals, Andrew cleared his name and walked free after 12 years of serving his sentence.
When engaging with the legal system, all people should be treated equally regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, income level, mental capacity, or other factors. The police, judicial personnel, and other legal authorities must follow this. This also includes equal access to the legal system and opportunities to use the courts. This describes the principle; all individuals are equal before the law. This principle of justice is important as it gives all individuals a fair go when defending their case, with no influence on the way they look or their past. When studying this case, I learned this was severely compromised and not upheld by the police.
When Andrew Mallard was identified as a suspect and taken to be questioned, the police were aware that he had a mental illness called a bipolar mood disorder. They took him out of a psychiatric hospital, ignoring his disorder and took advantage of that. The police did not give Andrew a fair chance, not even allowing him legal representation or even a nurse with him, instead, they locked him in a room for 8 hours and forced false confessions out of him. The police continually asked Andrew “Where were you when Pamela Lawrence was attacked,” even when he had protested against these multiple times. Eventually, Andrew spiralled into panic and delivered a ‘confession’ in the third person to get them to stop. Additionally, because of his past, the police also did not treat him as equal and automatically assume he was guilty, by not looking into any other suspects. This could have been avoided by adding a few more precautions such as letting Andrew have a representative or lawyer. Ultimately, this lack of equal treatment led to dozens of miscarriages in justice and wrongfully imprisoned Mr Mallard. defend him at all times.
All individuals have the right to remain silent is the principle of justice that was least upheld in Andrew Mallards. This principle includes, other than naming their name and address, all individuals have to right to not answer any questions and remain silent when being questioned by the police. This principle was one of the most crucial points in the investigation, as it was the main factor that made Andrew’s case unjust. This principle of justice is a very important aspect of the legal system as seen in Andrew’s case. In his case, his right to silence was not respected and breached several times. This included taking him out of the hospital to question him over and over again, police feeding him information on the case and telling him to repeat it back, which they treated as a confession. At one point they even illegally placed an undercover police officer to become his friend and try to manipulate him into thinking he was the killer. Being manipulated and put under a lot of pressure during these sessions, Andrew’s rights were violated and not respected. To have avoided this, they should have let Andrew feel comfortable and have a sense of safety.
The evidence that put Andrew Mallard in prison was not high quality, but instead was theory and false speculations. Both parties having high-quality evidence was not upheld, which ultimately lead to a wrongful conviction. High-quality evidence is based around all parties having an equal opportunity to present their case to the court. To eliminate all second-hand evidence or untrustworthy hearsay, the court ensures that all parties follow strict rules and processes then submitting their case to the court. Additionally, this also includes past criminal offences to be avoided as it could be a potentially biased verdict. The definition stated above was broken multiple times, for example, when the prosecutor was presenting the evidence to the jury, they left out crucial details and manipulated the evidence to make Andrew look more guilty.
The prosecutor had no solid evidence to present, they based their case on the incomplete ‘confessions’ that Andrew gave and their speculations. During one of the interrogation sessions, Andrew had mentioned that the wrench was the murder weapon. After they had investigated by striking blunt objects and examining the shapes they created, then comparing them to Pamela’s wounds. The results from the wrench did not line up with the wounds found on Pamela. This information along with the fact that Andrew is unable to remember important details from the crime scene was avoided and left out of the case when being present. Even with this low quality and biased evidence, Andrew Mallard still managed to be convicted of the murder of Mrs Lawrence. This mistake could have easily been avoided if the court had added more precautions which could have eliminated all the untrustworthy evidence. This shows the importance of both parties having reliable and high-quality evidence, as it prevents any false and partial convictions.
Though justice was severely compromised, Andrew and his team eventually managed to get a successful appeal with his sentence being quashed and allowing him to be set free in 2006. Our legal system had failed him the day he was convicted, it had not only been a miscarriage of justice but, it also ruined an innocent man’s life. This goes to show how important the principles of justice are for society. How Andrew was treated is unacceptable, with the police not treating him equally, forcing him to speak while disregarding his rights and manipulating evidence that could have cleared his name. It is awful when someone is punished for something they did not do. Thankfully, our legal system is constantly trying to improve itself to make society a better place.
