There are a number of key principles that our legal system is built upon that are designed to protect the rights of all Australian citizens. These principles include equality before the law, the right to a fair hearing, the judiciary being independent and impartial and the right to an appeal. Equality before the law is important because it means that everyone is treated the same, no matter their race, ethnicity, gender, income level, sexual preference etc. For example, someone who does not speak English as their first language has the right to have a representative to interpret and explain the legal process to them during questioning. Another principle of justice is an individual’s right to a fair and unbiased trial. This is important as it can help people from being charged as guilty when they were innocent, or the other way round. An example of this is if the defendant has a past criminal record. Sometimes the jury may be biased against the defendant if they have a past criminal record, so the prosecutors are not allowed to use their past criminal record as evidence. The third principle of justice is the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. This prevents elected governments from influencing the decisions of judges and magistrates. This principle also means that the judge cannot assist either party with their case which would give one party an unfair advantage over the other. For example, if a lawyer does not feel like they can represent the defendant to give them their best chance, they may apply for an adjournment to get a more senior representative. If the judge denies this request then they cause that party to be put at a disadvantage. The last principle is the right to a reasonable appeal. This allows an individual who is dissatisfied with the verdict of the case to have an appeal or review by a higher court. This could be compromised if the judge does not allow the defendant to have an appeal because they don’t think it will change anything. Through an investigation of the Andrew Mallard case, it will be shown that all of the principles of justice were heavily compromised and only a few of them were upheld.
The Mallard case started with the Murder of Pamila Lawrence on the 23rd of May, 1994. The police created a list of 130 suspects. These were people who were in the area at the time of the crime. Andrew Mallard was saying on a couch a few streets down which made him a suspect on the list. After police crossed of everyone with an alibi they took Mallard into questioning. Andrew Mallard had a number of mental illness’ and police took him without a interpreter, lawyer or a guardian. During the trial the prosecutors did not have a very compelling case. There was no reliable evidence and the only thing that the police had was his ‘confession’, and even the legitimacy of that was questionable. Mallards lawyer was very young and inexperienced and he did not question the police or explore the pieces of false evidence.
The police also did not disclose all information so there was not enough evidence to prove Mallard as innocent. The verdict of the trial ended up being guilty and Mallard was sentenced to life in prison. Mallard had to appeal 3 times before it was allowed He appealed once in the supreme court and twice in the high court. Mallards barrister, Mark Ryder then got a team together which consisted of a journalist and a few well known experienced lawyers. They found many pieces of evidence to say the police had breached evidence procedures and had questioned Mallard without giving him anyone to help him They then also found a handprint from the scene of the crime. Using modern technology they then found a match to the handprint. It belonged to a man named Simon Rochford who was being kept at Albany prison. Rochford had been sentenced after killing his girlfriend and leaving her in a car boot. They also found part of the weapon that Rochford may have used to kill both his girlfriend and Pamila Lawrence After taking Rochford into questioning he was found dead in his cell after having commited suicide. This was sufficient evidence to charge Rochford and eliminate Mallard as a suspect. Andrew Mallard was found innocent and all charges against him were lifted. Andrew Mallard was rewarded $3.25 million as compensation.
In the Mallard case, the defendant’s equality before the law was largely compromised. Andrew Mallard was known to have a number of mental health concerns, such as bipolar disorder and delusions of grandeur. On top of this, he was addicted to weed and was frequently high. People with mental health problems may not understand the legal system and be disadvantaged as a result, because of this they have the right to have a representative or interpreter while being questioned. In Mallard’s case, he was taken into questioning with no one to assist him. They deliberately waited to take Mallard after he was released from the psychiatric hospital so that nobody knew about the questioning and they could talk to him on his own. Because of Mallard’s delusions when police questioned him he was acctually giving his theory on how the murder happened and the police used this against him. They labelled it his ‘confession’ and made a list called “15 things only the murderer would know.” This would turn out to be the only piece of evidence against Mallard in the trial and the deciding factor in the jury’s verdict. Mallard was also living on the streets at the time with little to no income. This meant that he did not have the resources to hire a private lawyer and was assigned someone who was inexperienced in the supreme court and did not have to ability to represent Mallard to the highest standard.
Andrew Mallard’s right to a fair and unbiased trial was severely compromised due to many breaches of evidence. During the time of the Mallard case, an act had just passed through parliament that stated that unrecorded evidence could not be used as reliable evidence in a course case. However, this act was so new that it had not yet been signed off by the Governor-General and was not being enforced yet. This allowed the prosecutors to use 8 hours of unrecorded questioning as evidence. This caused bias in the jury as they trusted the police to not do anything unprofessional and credited the unrecorded evidence just as much as the recorded. A lot of this evidence they used was twisted by the police and there is evidence to suggest that during the 8 hours of unrecorded questioning the police drip-fed him small details about the case which Mallard then recited on camera causing people to think that he was guilty. The police also failed to disclose evidence to the defence team which could have helped prove his innocence. One of the pieces of evidence that the prosecutors used was the fact that in questioning Mallard had said that if he was the murderer he would have used a wrench stored in the back shed, he then drew this wrench out and police said that that was what he used to kill Pamila Lawrence. A forensic study then concluded that the wounds that would have been produced using the wrench were not similar to the wounds that Lawrence had. Investigators also found a drop of blood on Mallard’s shoes which was of a very rare blood type found in about 4% of the population. This was also coincidentally the same blood type as Pamila Lawrence. The police used this as evidence despite getting a call after saying that that test was acctually wrong and the blood found was acctually Mallard’s blood.
In the Mallard case, the independence and impartiality of the judiciary were partially compromised but also partially upheld. During the case the was no involvement of the government and the court was independent without influence from politicians. The judge also did not assist either party, however, he did put Mallard at a disadvantage. Andrew Mallard appointed lawyer was young and inexperienced in the supreme court. He knew this so he applied for an adjournment to seek a more senior representative. The judge denied this request, putting Mallard at a severe disadvantage. If this request was approved it could have greatly affected the outcome of the trial and Andrew Mallard may not have been wrongly convicted. The police also did violate the evidence procedures by going through the many hours of unrecorded questioning which was described in the previous paragraph. After the trial, Mallard is receive the right to a reasonable appeal but he had to appeal three times before it finally passed, and a retrial was ordered. The first appeal was in the supreme court and the next two were in the high court. The first two appeals were both denied. During the first two appeals, Mallard’s barrister Mark Ryder highlighted the 8 hours of unrecorded questioning, which I explained when talking about his right to a fair trial. When the judge heard this, he did not believe that the police would do this, as, at the time, this level of police corruption was unthinkable. This is why the appeals were denied. It was only when a team of lawyers and investigators went through the reports and evidence that the appeal was approved. The judges of his first two appeals and the jury that had originally convicted him put too much faith in the police which lead to his conviction and the denial of his appeals.
In the Mallard case the defendant’s equality before the law was largely compromised. Andrew Mallard was known to have a number of mental health concerns, such as bipolar disorder and delusions of grandeur. On top of this he was addicted to weed and was frequently high. People with mental health problems may not understand the legal system and be disadvantaged as a result, because of this they have the right to have a representative or interpreter while being questioned. In Mallard’s case, he was taken into questioning with no one to assist him. They deliberately waited to take Mallard after he was released from the psychiatric hospital, so that nobody knew about the questioning and they could talk to him on his own. Because of Mallards delusions when police questioned him he was acctually giving his theory on how the murder happened and the police used this against him. They labeled it his ‘confession’ and made a list called “15 things only the murderer would know.” This would turn out to be the only piece of evidence against Mallard in the trial and the deciding factor of the jury’s verdict. Mallard was also living on the streets at the time with little to no income. This meant that he did not have the resources to hire a private lawyer and was assigned someone who was inexperienced in the supreme court and did not have to ability to represent Mallard to the highest standard.
Andrew Mallards right to a fair and unbiased trial was severely compromised due to many breaches of evidence. During the time of the Mallard case an act had just passed through parliament that stated that unrecorded evidence could not be used as reliable evidence in a course case. However, this act was so new that it had not yet been signed off by the Governor General and was not being enforced yet. This allowed the prosecutors to use 8 hours of unrecorded questioning as evidence. This caused bias in the jury as they trusted the police to not do anything unprofessional and credited the unrecorded evidence just as much as the recorded. A lot of this evidence they used was twisted by the police and there is evidence to suggest that during the 8 hours of unrecorded questioning the police drip fed him small details about the case which Mallard then recited on camera causing people to think that he was guilty. The police also failed to disclose evidence to the defense team which could have helped prove his innocence. One of the pieces of evidence that the prosecutors used was the fact that in questioning Mallard had said that if he was the murderer he would have used a wrench stored in the back shed, he the drew this wrench out and police said that that was what he used to kill Pamila Lawrence. A forensic study then concluded that the wounds that would have been produced using the wrench were not similar to the wounds that Lawrence acctually had. Investigators also found a drop of blood on Mallards shoes which was of a very rare blood type found in about 4% of the population. This was also coincidentally the same blood type as Pamila Lawrence. The police used this as evidence despite getting a call after saying that that test was acctually wrong and the blood found was acctually Mallards own blood.
In the Mallard case, the independency and impartiality of the judiciary was partially compromised but also partially upheld. During the case the was not involvement of the government and the court was independent without influence from politicians. The judge also did not assist either party, however, he did put Mallard at a disadvantage. Andrew Mallards appointed lawyer was a young and inexperienced in the supreme court. He knew this so he applied for an adjournment to seek a more senior representative. The judge denied this request, putting Mallard at a severe disadvantage. If this request was approved is could have greatly affected the outcome of the trial and Andrew Mallard may not have been wrongly convicted. The police also did violate the evidence procedures by going through the many hours of unrecorded questioning which was described in the previous paragraph.
After the trial Mallard is receive the right for a reasonable appeal but he had to appeal three times before it finally passed, and a retrial was ordered. The first appeal was in the supreme court and the next two were in the high court. The first two appeals were both denied. During the first two appeals, Mallard’s barrister Mark Ryder highlighted the 8 hours of unrecorded questioning, which I explained when talking about his right to a fair trial. When the judge heard this, he did not believe that the police would do this, as at the time, this level of police corruption was unthinkable. This is why the appeals were denied. It was only when a team of lawyers and investigators went through the reports and evidence that the appeal was approved. The judge’s of his first two appeals and the jury that had originally convicted him put too much faith in the police which lead to his conviction and the denial of his appeals.