Case summary:
Andrew Mallard’s case had all the ingredients for what can go wrong when the principles of justice are ignored. The case had an accused who was vulnerable and disadvantaged, whose special needs were ignored, a female victim from an affluent suburb and a police force desperately wanting to solve the crime to calm the relatively safe city of Perth the murderer had been “put away”.
On the 23rd May 1994, Mrs Lawrence the owner of the jewellery shop Flora Metallica in Mosman park, was bludgeoned to the head. The attack took place in broad daylight. Pamela Lawrence didn’t survive the attack, dying in hospital several hours later. The crime shook Perth, not only was it a murder, it took place in a “good” suburb and in the middle of the day. It was a brazen attack.
Andrew Mallard was not in a good way. He had suffered a nervous breakdown and was living on the streets. He came to the police’s attention when he was placed in Perth’s mental hospital, Graylands after committing a crime. He had attempted a burglary while impersonating a police officer. Andrew Mallard was one of the police’s 136 initial suspects.
The police interviewed Andrew Mallard several times. The lengthy , numerous interviews, with a person who clearly had mental health issues, placed Mallard in a vulnerable position and the police exploited that. During one of the interviews the police asked Andrew Mallard to speculate how Mrs Lawrence was killed. Mallard came up for a story that he thought a wrench was used. He drew a picture of the wrench. The police later claimed this picture was what Mallard had used to kill Mrs Lawrence. Andrew Mallard later claimed the police fed him information about the case and got him to repeat it back to him, which the police then treated as a confession.
During the trial the prosecution withheld crucial evidence from the jury, most importantly a pathologist report that a wrench could not have caused Mrs Lawrence’s injuries and therefore could not be the murder weapon. This act of the prosecution is the most fundamental breaches of the principles of justice. The pathologist had conducted tests on a pig’s head. The prosecution are required to hand over all evidence to the defence, not just the evidence that supports their case.
Additionally the prosecution did not disclosure witness statements the police had first obtained, which did not match with the second and third statements the prosecution put before the court. If they had, the defence could have cross examined the witnesses on those inconsistent statements which could have created the necessary “reasonable doubt” they needed to find Andrew Mallard not guilty.
Andrew Mallard was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 20 years. He served 12 years before having his conviction quashed by the High Court. That was only possible after the unrelenting efforts of his brother Roy to prove his brother’s innocence. He convinced journalist Colleen Egan to investigate the case , who together with the help of our now Attorney General John Quigley. Before he was a politician John Quigley used to be a lawyer for the police union so he knew of how the police sometimes ran their cases and how they failed to abide by the rules of procedural fairness. Through his position as a high ranking Politian and with the journalist, they were bale to access the police files which contained the information they needed to bring the case before the Courts of Appel and the high court and have Andrew Mallard’s wrongful conviction quashed.
Principles of justice:
The principles of justice are a collection of fundamental legal concepts that, if applied, should protect all Australian citizens’ rights while engaging with the legal system, ensuring that the systems in place, generate accurate, fair and unbiased decisions. At their core, the principles of justice encompass the essential elements; fairness – a person is entitled to a fair hearing , equality -people should be treated equally regardless of race, status and education, and access – people should be able to understand their legal rights and have the ability to pursue their case. Within these principles of justice are important rights that must be upheld and in every case; including the right to silence, the right to be warned that anything you say to the police can and will be used against you and the right to adequate representation on serious offences (ones where you are likely to be jailed if found guilty). While the principles of justice seem obvious as rights all citizens should have, the reality of our legal system and today’s society, is that too often a person’s rights are treated as disposable in the pursuit of a verdict, or put anther way “justice” for the victim. When a conviction is the goal, the principles of justice go out the window and vulnerable people such as Andrew Mallard get thrown under a bus. As the Andrew Mallard case demonstrates, undermining the values we are suppose to uphold when dealing with a criminal matter can have disastrous effects. Andrew Mallard’s case is , unfortunately for him, a brilliant example of what happens when the basic principles of justice are neglected. It is also a good example of how upholding some of the principles of justice (as was the case with Andrew Mallard) is not good enough. Neglecting or overlooking any of these fundamental principles leads to injustice, faulty convictions, and in Andrew Mallard’s case, the deprivation of a vulnerable person’s freedom for 12 years.
Equality before the law means that everyone is given what they need to be able to understand the law, everyone should be equal when dealing with the law. This may mean providing an interpreter for someone who speaks limited English or who has a mental impairment so that they can understand what is happening during the process. In the Andrew Mallard case this principle was infringed. Andrew had a number of disadvantages which led to his imprisonment. Andrew was diagnosed with bi polar and hypo mania. He was easy to influence and he claimed that police took advantage off that fact. During the interviewing process a number of his rights were violated. Andrew claimed that investigators spoon fed him information about the murder, and then when he was prompted to say what he believed happened they used that information against him. This breaches his rights because he was not accompanied by a lawyer who could have advised him against these actions. It’s important to note that Andrew Mallard was taken from a psychiatric hospital to be questioned. This means that he was not even given the opportunity to hire a lawyer and avoid incrimination. Because of Andrews cognitive impairment he was susceptible to suggestion. This means that he was more likely to give an answer that he thought the police would accept. During an interview, the police asked Andrew how he thought Pamela Lawrence was murdered. Andrew provided the answer that she was killed with a wrench that the police then told him to draw, this picture was then used as evidence against Andrew . However it was later discovered that Pamela couldn’t have possibly been killed with that weapon. But despite this proposed murder weapon not matching the wounds on Palmers head the police either did not investigate the murder weapon further, or they withheld that information from the court. To prevent this it would have been crucial for proper procedure to be followed and evidence be presented to the courts. Compromising this principle meant that Andrew was at a huge disadvantage When he stood trial.
In this case, the right to appeal was crucial in freeing Andrew Mallard. An individual’s right to appeal means that they can take their case to a higher court if they believe there has been a factual error, a legal error, or a grave miscarriage of justice. This is an important premise because, as we all know, the legal system in Western Australia isn’t perfect, and mistakes do happen. Andrew’s sentence was unanimously annulled after his legal team filed an appeal that was accepted in 2006, nearly 12 years after he was initially sent to jail in 1995 Because of unreliable and untrustworthy evidence. Andrew was compensated $3.25 million for his time in prison, he then used this money to travel the world, eventually dying in a drive by in las-vegas in 2019.
The right to understand the legal system means that everyone who interacts with it has a right to know how it works and to be given the resources they need to do so. In the Andrew Mallard case, this concept was scarcely respected but largely undermined. Andrew was not given a lawyer or a mental health professional when interviewed by police, and it is unclear if he was aware that he could request one. Andrew was forced to cope with the complicated legal system on his own because he was not provided with a lawyer. When Andrew Mallard was eventually summoned to court, many of the things he said without legal counsel were used against him, for example when mallard drew the wrench that police identified as the murder weapon he believed that he was helping the police with their investigation, and not that they would use that picture against him in court. If Andrew had understood the legal system and how the police worked, he could have avoided this situation entirely. He might have been able to avoid “confessing” entirely if he knew that what he said was being used against him. It is critical that everyone understands how a legal system works and what its ramifications are, and that they have the resources to do so.
Several values were supported and compromised in the Andrew Mallard case, including equality before the law, the right to a reasonable appeal, and the right to comprehend the legal system. These principles ensure that our judicial system is fair and just, and that it does not become completely corrupt. These values must be respected in order to keep innocent individuals out of jail, and without them, people like Andrew Mallard could have been wrongfully imprisoned for 20 years.
