There are many principles that help the justice system operate fairly. Some of these include equality before the law, the right to a fair hearing, an independent and unbiased judiciary, the right to a fair hearing and the right to an appeal. The Andrew Mallard case involved the defendant Andrew Mallard who was convicted of murdering Pamela Lawrence because key information was withheld. The principles of a right to a fair hearing, an independent and unbiased judiciary and the right to an appeal were compromised in this case although justice was upheld in some instances.

An independent and unbiased judiciary is where the judge and jury are free to make their decision without the influence of outside bodies such as the government. This is important as the judge and jury are unbiased and can hopefully deliver the correct verdict. The Andrew Mallard case was a very high profile one and was talked about a lot in the media. A jury should not have been used to decide the outcome of the case as this may have resulted in a biased decision. This was not the case and a jury was used which severely compromised Andrew Mallard’s right to an independent and unbiased judiciary. A solution to this, is to not have a jury and instead have an independent judge who does not have prior knowledge of the case and decide the verdict. All in all, an independent and unbiased judiciary was compromised in the Mallard case.

There are many instances in the courtroom where the right to appeal is used. The right to appeal means people who are dissatisfied with the outcome of their case are allowed to appeal if it is within reason. This is important because the right decision may not always be made, and parties need the opportunity to get cases reviewed. In the Andrew Mallard case, the right to an appeal was supported and justice was upheld. After 12 years Andrew appealed to the High Court of Australia. Police conducted a review on the investigation and found that he was not guilty because vital evidence was missing. On the other hand, there were 10 years of appeals prior to this, where the investigation was not reviewed, and he was still found guilty. This can be improved by cases being regularly reviewed so incorrect verdicts are not handed down. Furthermore, the right to an appeal was supported but also compromised in Andrew’s case.

The right to a fair hearing means both parties are allowed to express their evidence with reliable information. This is important as judges and juries need to be able to make their decision based on all the correct evidence. In the Mallard case, key information was missing, and police changed witness statements, entering false records. The defence party’s case was compromised, and they could not argue their case as equally as the prosecution. The jury (which shouldn’t have been used) was also more inclined to believe the prosecution because they had more evidence available. On the other hand, the right to a fair hearing was upheld because Andrew had a lawyer which helped him to express himself in court. The judge and jury were also impartial in the courtroom allowing both parties to speak and argue their case. Strategies to be implemented to prevent this from happening include investigations being reviewed and ensuring all the right evidence is present when discussing a case. Therefore, it can be clearly seen that the right to a fair hearing was both severely compromised and upheld in this case.

The Andrew Mallard case is a prime example of where justice was heavily compromised but also upheld. This is shown through the principles of the right to a fair hearing, an independent and unbiased judiciary, and the right to an appeal. In the case, key information was withheld, and the case gained much media attention. Ultimately, police must be precise with the details of cases they oversee, and cases should be regularly reviewed so the right decision is made.