The principles of justice are the foundations of Australia’s legal system. Four key principles supported by other rules and laws, help us maintain a fair and unbiased legal system. These principles are, all individuals are equal before the law and must be treated fairly by the law and by the police, the right to a fair and unbiased hearing, the judiciary is fair and unbiased, and individuals have the right to a reasonable appeal. These key principles must be upheld during all trials in Australia to allow everyone an equal chance to prove their innocence. Unfortunately, these principles are not always followed, which can lead to unfair outcomes and individuals being wrongly judged. The Andrew Mallard case is an example of what may happen when the principles of justice are undermined, with an innocent man spending 12 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit.
In 1995 Pamela Lawerence was murdered in her jewellery shop. The police made a list of all suspects in the area. After narrowing down the list they arrived at one specific suspect. Andrew Mallard. A 33-year-old man, with mental health issues and a past criminal record of small offences. The police began to question Andrew about his location at the time of the offence, but because of his mental health issues, his answers would often not line up. This caused the police to be suspicious of him. The tipping point was when the police confiscated Andrew Mallard’s clothes. There happened to be one drop of blood on his shoes, this blood happened to be the same type as Pamela Lawerence. Because this blood type was rather rare, the police took him into custody to question him. Later it was discovered that the blood on his shoe was his own, but by then it was too late. The police arrested him as he was cleared from the mental hospital, meaning he had no lawyer or legal guardian. They interviewed him for multiple hours but only recorded 20 minutes of it. The rest was only documented by police notes despite the available recording equipment. During the interview, Andrew Mallard tended to create theories about what had happened. Despite these being complete illusions based on the information the police had told him, the police took this as a confession. The police then asked him what he thought happened to the murder weapon. Andrew theorised that the killer grabbed a wrench from the shed outside and murdered her with it. He then proceeded to draw the object he thought was the weapon, the police then charged him with the crime and took him to court. The police based their case on 1 important factor. The 15 things only a killer would know. This referred to 15 facts only the actual murderer of Pamela Lawerence would know. This would eventually lead to Andrew Mallard being imprisoned. This was partly because of his lawyer’s inexperience. But when the lawyer applied to the judge to get more senior counsel for Andrew Mallard, the judge declined. He was sentenced to life in prison. His first appeal attempt was denied as they were not able to prove him innocent. Then after Andrew had spent 12 years in prison, he was allowed a second appeal because of an article written by a journalist that convinced a well-known figure, who commonly defended the police in court, to come to Andrew Mallard’s aid. They pointed out the flaws in the prosecution’s case, their main point was that the weapon Andrew Mallard drew could not be used to inflict the wounds on the body, as proven by a test on a pig head. This convinced the judge that he was innocent. Andrew Mallard was let free and an investigation into the actual culprit and police corruption began.
All individuals are equal before the law and must be treated fairly by the law and the police. This principle refers to how everyone is treated the same, regardless of gender, sexuality, age, ethnicity, and income level. This principle is important as it ensures trials are judged by evidence instead of by factors not relevant to the trial. This is supported by rights such as the right to silence, the right to a legal guardian and the right to the presumption of innocence.
Throughout the Andrew Mallard case the principle of, all individuals are equal before the law and must be treated fairly by the law and the police was largely compromised. This was compromised because of the police’s treatment of Andrew Mallard throughout the investigation. This was highlighted in the police interrogation with Andrew Mallard, in which the police arrested him directly after he had been released from the mental hospital. This interfered with his right to a legal guardian. The police did this because of Andrew’s mental issues, knowing that they may cause him to misunderstand what was happening. The police should have allowed Andrew to have a legal guardian with him during the interview to avoid issues like the ones that occurred during this case.
Everyone has the right to a fair and unbiased trial. Meaning that they are not judged by anything other than evidence provided in the trial. This principle is important as it ensures that people are given equal time to present their cases and are judged purely on the evidence presented. This principle is aided by other rules such as, parties can only present relevant and reliable evidence and that all people have the right to free legal advice to help them understand the legal system and prepare their case.
In the Andrew Mallard case the principle of, everyone has the right to a fair and unbiased trial, was slightly upheld but was largely compromised. It was upheld as both parties were given equal opportunity to present their evidence and normal court procedures were followed for the trial. It was compromised on many occasions, such as the judge’s rejection of Andrew Mallard’s lawyer application to get more senior counsel for his client, as the lawyer was rather inexperienced. It was also compromised as the prosecution presented unreliable evidence, as well as withheld important evidence that would have changed the outcome of the trial, as it went against the evidence the prosecution had presented. To help uphold this principle the judge should have allowed Andrew Mallard to receive more adequate help to ensure he understood the legal system, while the police should have presented any information, they didn’t use to the defendant to use for their case.
The judiciary is independent and impartial. This principle refers to how the judiciary is separate from the government or any other organisations. This is important as it ensures that they are not influenced by any other sources, and provides a judgement based purely on the evidence rather than any outside sources.
This principle was largely upheld throughout the Andrew Mallard case, though it was slightly compromised. It was mainly upheld as the Judge and Jury were unbiased and gave both sides equal time to present their case. They were not subject to any influence from factors outside of the case and followed the normal procedures to lead a fair case. It was slightly compromised because when Andrew Mallard’s lawyer asked the judge for an adjournment to obtain more senior counsel for his client, his request was denied. To improve how upheld this principle was the judge should have allowed Andrew Mallard’s lawyer to get a more experienced lawyer to help explain the legal system to Andrew Mallard.
The right to a reasonable appeal. This principle refers to the ability to have your case reviewed by a higher court if you can provide reasonable grounds. This principle is important as if you believe that you have had an unfair trial you can change the outcome or sentence. This means that even if any of the previous principles were violated they can be upheld.
Throughout the Andrew Mallard case, this principle was both upheld and undermined. It was upheld as Andrew Mallard after applying received the first appeal for his case. Along with this he also received a second appeal later in time, which would eventually lead to his release. It was undermined as both appeals took large amounts of time to be reviewed, with the first one not proving the innocence of Andrew Mallard to the judge. The second appeal was also only possible because of an article written by a journalist. This article convinced a well-renowned figure among the police force, known for representing police in court against charges of corruption, that there were large amounts of police corruption involved in this case. With his help, they were eventually able to receive a second hearing and prove the innocence of Andrew Mallard and the corruption of the police who investigated him.