Australia’s legal system is based upon the principles of justice however, In the Andrew Mallard case the principles of justice were almost completely compromised. It was upheld in the aspect that the judge allowed evidence to be presented in the court however vital evidence for the case was held back by police which compromised Andrew Mallard’s right to a fair hearing. Andrew Mallard also suffered from a mental illness (schizophrenia which impaired his perception and judgement of reality) and was offered no support in the hearing. In this hearing the police did not remain impartial in the fact they withheld evidence and changed witness statements made to convict Andrew Mallard of the crime which undermined Andrew Mallard’s right to a fair hearing. Andrew Mallard did also not receive a reasonable appeal until 12 years later, and his multiple bids for a re-trial were denied meaning that his right to a reasonable appeal was not upheld. Andrew Mallard was treated equally in the case by the judge and court personnel however he was not by the police who withheld evidence which weakened the principle, all individuals are equal before the law.
On the 23rd of May 1994, a woman by the name of Pamela Lawrence was found dead inside of her jewellery store in the city of Perth. She was discovered to have been murdered, caused by blunt force trauma to the backside of her head where she was knocked unconscious and was later pronounced dead in hospital. After the death of Pamela Lawrence, a citywide manhunt was conducted to catch the murderer in which 136 suspects were found. Of them there was Andrew Mallard, who had been marked as a suspect due to his consistent mental struggles and an attempted burglary where he disguised himself as a police officer. Andrew Mallard was taken from the mental hospital at which he was staying. Andrew Mallard was then questioned by police where they recorded a video tape and got a written confession on his theories regarding the murder. The Andrew Mallard court hearing began on the 2nd of November 1995 in the supreme court in front of both a judge and a jury. In the court hearing Andrew Mallard pleaded not guilty for the murder of Pamela Lawrence, however the police however used evidence from the unlawfully conducted interview against Andrew Mallard during the court case. Vital evidence to the case was also withheld by police as to change the verdict of the trial. Witness statements were also tampered with, this resulted in the judge as well as the already biased jury being sided towards the prosecution. On November the 3rd 1995, only a day after the trial, Andrew Mallard was found guilty of the murder of Pamela Lawrence and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment without a chance of parole. While Andrew Mallard was serving his time in prison, he lodged multiple appeals to the court of criminal appeal who rejected his pleads numerous times. Eventually Andrew Mallard was able to convince the high court of Australia to hear his case and he was released, but only after spending 12 years in prison.
The principle of justice which is, all individuals are equal before the law, was compromised in the Andrew Mallard case through a variety of factors during the court hearing, investigation and questioning. Andrew Mallard was taken into questioning after the murder of Pamela Lawrence because of his previous mental struggles and an attempted burglary. After Andrew Mallard made the suspect list, he was taken unlawfully taken from his mental hospital for questioning by police where he did not receive a lawyer or guardian to explain the legal system or assist him with his mental illness. Through this the police were able to get a “confession” from Andrew Mallard by recording a video tape of his theories regarding the murder, as well as feeding him information to repeat back to them. This violated the principle of all individuals are equal before the law because inadequate resources were allocated to Andrew Mallard during both the questioning and the court hearing to help him with his schizophrenia. These examples demonstrate that the principle of all individuals is equal before the law was not upheld in the Andrew Mallard case.
The Andrew Mallard case involved the principle of justice, Individuals have the right to reasonable appeal which was violated in the case because of different aspects and elements of the court hearing and questioning that were overlooked and not dealt with adequately by the judicial system. In The Andrew Mallard case, he was given only a small number of chances to appeal, to which all of them were rejected by the criminal appeal office. It was not until 12 years later that Andrew Mallard’s plead reached the high court of Australia, and they were able to review it and grant Andrew Mallard his freedom. This was a huge miscarriage of justice and the fact that Andrew Mallard stayed up to 12 years in prison, because appeals and pleads were rejected due to unreasonable ground and circumstances violated this principle of justice. This incident and violation of Andrew Mallard’s right to reasonable appeal signifies the importance of the judicial system upholding societies rights and highlights the substantiality of this principle of justice on the case and impact to Andrew Mallard.
Right to an unbiased and impartial judiciary was another important principle of justice that was undermined in the Andrew Mallard case and was determined by underlying key factors and influence. An example of this is during both the questioning and the court hearing, the police were completely biased towards to the prosecution. They conducted unlawful and unethical questionings to Andrew Mallard through which they forced him into revealing untruthful evidence that they used in court to convict him. Witness statements during the court hearing were also changed as well as other vital evidence that would have changed the direction of the entire court hearing and verdict. These examples of bias and unlawfulness in the judicial system demonstrate and indicate that Andrew Mallard’s right to an unbiased and impartial judiciary was not upheld and was compromised in almost every aspect of both the trial and questioning relating to the case.
Lastly, Andrew Mallard’s right to a fair hearing was mostly upheld in the court of law. During the court hearing, Andrew Mallard was granted equal opportunity to present his case to the both the judge and jury and was equal to the prosecution. And although Andrew Mallard was given an unexperienced lawyer during the hearing, he was not condemned and was granted the right to speak freely and plead his case. Andrew Mallard’s past criminal record did not impact the court hearing at all, and it did not influence the judge and juries’ decision which allowed for this aspect of the principle of justice, all individuals have the right to a fair hearing to be upheld in the case. Andrew Mallard’s equal opportunities to present his case as well as not being condemned by the court system demonstrates that the principle of justice, all individuals have the right to a fair hearing was upheld in this court hearing and allowed some aspects of justice to be upheld for Andrew Mallard.