In this project, we learned about the principles of justice that uphold Australia’s legal system, such as the presumption of innocence, an impartial judiciary, and the right to legal representation. I studied the case of Andrew Mallard and analyzed how these principles were both upheld and violated in this case. After writing an essay on the topic, we were required to incorporate feedback and edit the essay so that it was fit for online publication. This essay is the end result of that editing process. It demonstrates my ability to take feedback and refine a piece of written work to produce a professional result.
Our legal system sent an innocent man to jail for eleven years, how did this happen? The case I researched was on Andrew mallard. Andrew was convicted of murdering a jewellery shop owner, even though there was no real evidence and due to a journalists investigation, he was found wrongfully convicted. There are four principles of justice, one is the right to a fair trial, the second is the be treated equally, the third is the right to appeal. I will be talking about these principles of justice and if they were upheld in this case. In this case not all the principles of justice were upheld, there was a bit of both in this case and I will explain.
The first one I will talk about is that everyone must be treated equally no matter the race, religion, metal capacity and more, this principle of justice is important because it’s the basis of Australian culture as we don’t have a cl ass driven society and we believe everyone should be treated equally no matter what. This principle of justice was not upheld in Andrew Mallards case. In the Mallard case he was picked on as an easy target because of his mental abilities and that he was living on the streets. The police knew that they could make him say stuff by feeding him information about that case and making him say it back and record it. The police told him the weapon that was used for the murder and then forced him into saying what was used, the police used this as evidence for him saying what was used and that the only person that would know that would be the murderer. The police used that as evidence (or as an confection) that he did it. In this case they did not treat him correctly and they should not have picked on him because of his mental illness. I do not think this principle of justice (being treated equally) was not upheld because of the mental state and his homelessness.
One of the other principles of justice is the right for a fair trial, and this was not up held in Andrew Mallard case. This means that all the evidence was showed and all the information about that case including witnesses was talked about and considered by the jury and judge before a decision. This principle of justice is important because there must be adequate proof that he did it. In Mallards case this principle of justice was not upheld. I know this because in the case there was blood on the weapon and it was not the same as Andrews blood, but they did not present this very important information in the case so the judge and jury couldn’t know. In this case the police and prosecuter should have presented all the information in the court hearing. I don’t think this principle of justice was upheld as they didn’t present all the information to the court.
The other principal of justice is the right to an appeal. The right of an appeal is important because if new evidence is found or if court proceeding were found to have been conducted incorrectly or they still believe there are innocent they need the right to try again. Once Andrew was sent to jail he had two appeals, one was in the high count and one was in the supreme court but they both didn’t change the conviction. This principle of justice was upheld in Mallards case, but in neither case, complete evidence was missing.
The last principal of justice is the judiciary is independent and impartial this means that the government, court and the police are separate so the judge and jury can make their decision without influences and without too much pressure to choose one side. This principle of justice is important so not one person is influenced by anyone else. In Mallards case this was upheld. In this principle of justice the people making the decision cannot personally know who Andrew Mallard is because if they did they could or would be influenced to choose a side. This was also upheld.
The fact remains that although most of the principles of justice were upheld and eventually corrected the conviction in Andrew Mallards favor, the poor policing, gathering of evidence, and the fact that they had no real evidence, cost Mallard twelve years of his life. So overall the principles of justice were and were not upheld in Andrew Mallards case.