There are a number of principles that are designed to ensure a stable legal system that brings justice to the right people, these principles are woven together to create the basis of our justice system. These are instrumental as the justice system works on these principles to ensure that the right people are served justice and the innocent are allowed to walk free. Some examples of Principles of Justice include High-Quality Evidence, The Right to an appeal, and Everyone is Equal before the law, High Quality Evidence must be provided in a case, it must be verified and heavily scrutinized to ensure it is real and not planted, Everyone must have the right to an appeal if they have reasonable grounds so they can avoid prison or high fines, Everyone must also be treated equally before the law despite race or gender. Even if one of these is ignored our justice system will be obsolete, there are strict measures in place within the courts so these cannot be breached, however, there are occasions where these have been ignored. The Andrew Mallard case is one of the most famous of these breaches, through a series of errors and corruption Andrew Mallard was falsely imprisoned for 12 years for a murder not committed by him this demonstrated serious holes in our justice system that went ignored for years.
Andrew Mallard was born in 1963 in the United Kingdom, he moved to Perth as a child and grew up in Perth. Pamela Lawrence was a business proprietor who owned the jewelry shop Flora Metallica in the suburb of Mosman Park. In the afternoon of the 23rd of May 1994, Pamela was brutally bludgeoned to death in her jewelry shop while she was closing. Her husband began to worry as she was not home and it was getting late, at around 6:30 pm he found her barely alive on the floor of the shop, she succumbed to her injuries at around 7:00 pm. At 5:02 pm that day a staff member’s daughter was driving past and claimed to see a tall man with a ginger beard behind the counter of the store, when he realized he had been spotted he quickly ducked. Andrew Mallard was named the prime suspect by police as they claim he was in the area at the time, he was brought in for questioning by the police and was eventually coerced to give a “confession” to the police. During his trial, a lot of false evidence was brought up such as the “confession” he made, he was given a life sentence for this crime and was sentenced in 1995 it took 12 years and multiple appeals for him to be released finally in 2006. He Later was released and became an artist until his ultimate death in 2019 from a hit and run.
One of the Principles violated in the case was High Quality Evidence, The Mallard case was a very famous case around Perth at the time, this put pressure on the police to solve it as quickly as possible, Mallard was arrested and brought into questioning by the police, it was a brutal questioning where it lasted hours and hours and he had to sustain psycholigcal torture for the whole time and was already in a poor mental state prior to interrogation. Mallard gave a recount of what he thought a possible scenario of the murder was which was recorded and used against him in the trial, he produced drawings of a spanner as a possible murder weapon which was also used in the trial. No DNA trace was found on mallard, which was unusual based on the severity of the attack on Lawrence, it was also later revealed that the police had tampered and witheld multiple key parts of evidence from the trial such as the fact that there had been an undercover operation against mallard before the trial, he was convicted on two pieces of evidence, these were police notes from Mallards interview and the final 11 minutes of his 9 hour interrogation. The evidence used in this case is incredibly weak with it containing almost no concrete evidence linking him to the murder, just 2 board “statements” which had not even been signed by mallard, The principle of High Quality Evidence is one of the most important and it was ignored the most during the case.
All people must be treated equal before the law and this is one of the founding principles of our justice system, in Andrew Mallards case this principle was also broken, he was convicted based on very poor evidence that was tampered with. His case was influenced by corruption in the police and legal system, Mallard had a past of minor convictions such as petty theft, impersonating a police officer and had also just been released from a mental hospital previously, these were used against him in the trial as he was labelled as mentally unstable by the prosecution team. Evidence such as the fact that an undercover operation had been witheld from the defense team, this was very crucial evidence and it being witheld played a big part in his wrongful conviction, his confession which was said in 3rd person was claimed by police to be legitimate was one of the main grounds the prosecution had to convict mallard. The Trial was riddled with inconsistencies and poor evidence which showed that he was treated unequal by the system possibly due to his past issues with mental health and previous convictions, having other cases could put the integrity of our justice system in doubt again.
One of the few principles actually used in Mallards conviction was the right to an appeal, throughout his sentence there were multiple appeals such as in 2003 where new evidence was brought up, alongside an uncontested claim that the DPP had witheld vital parts of evidence from the trial, the supreme court dismissed the appeal. However in 2004 the Mallard defense team was allowed special leave to appeal before the high court of Australia where they provided them with new forensic evidence which resulted in a unanimous decision for a re-trial and for his conviction to be quashed. The re-trial included new evidence against his prosecution, his “confession” was deemed impossible by the prosecuter and he was found not guilty. After this the DPP took 6 months to remove his conviction, and on Februart 20th 2006 he was released from prison. This principle was very important in getting Mallards convtion quashed and was one of the few actually honoured by the WA courts system.
Andrew Mallards case is one of the most famous misscariages of justice in WA and Australia, it was a show of the WA court systems holes and that no system is perfect and there is corruption almost everywhere, many of the people who were behind mallards false conviction were allowed to walk free with almost no consequences. The principles mentioned were only just a few of the ones broken
| Principle of justice | Explanation | How supported or compromised in your case |
| Everyone is equal before the law | This is the most fundamental principle, it states that all equals need to be treated equal in front of the court and all unequal’s should be treated unequal. | Mallard was not treated equally before the law, the trial was flawed in many ways against him with a serious amount of evidence ignored |
| Everyone has the right to a fair hearing | Everyone has the right to be treated equal before courts and tribunals, everyone has the right to a fair public hearing with a competent and unbiased court | Mallards trial was heavily biased against him and he did not receive an unbiased hearing from the court. |
| The Jury is independent and impartial | The judiciary should decide the outcome of a case after an impartial assessment of the facts and their application | The jury was heavily influenced by the police and the media labelling mallard the prime and only suspect in the murder. |
| The right to an appeal | The ability for a group/party to appeal a questionable decision in judgment is a principle of justice and part of the rule of law | This was supported in his case as he was able to appeal multiple times and was acquitted from one of these |
| The right to silence | A person suspected of a criminal offense has the right to remain silent, this extends to being able to refuse a police interview. | He was given the right to remain silent when he was arrested |
| The presumption of innocence’s | The presumption of innocence guarantees that no guilt can be assumed until a charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt | Mallard was labelled the murderer by the media |
| High Quality Evidence | A charge must be backed up with irrefutable evidence that the person was committed a crime, there also must be a variety of evidence to prove this | There was a lack of high quality evidence in this case, a lot was manipulated by the police such as a “confession” which was just Andrew giving a possible scenario of the murder |