In this project, we learnt 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 analysed 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 to refine a piece of written work to produce a professional result.
Andrew Mallard spent 12 years in jail for a murder he did not commit in a court case with no real evidence. Andrew Mallard was convicted in 1995 for the murder of Pamela Lawrence, who was found in her jewellery shop at Mosman Park on the 23rd May 1994, suffering extensive head wounds and later dying, no evidence linking any weapon or person to the crime. At the time of the crime Andrew Mallard had recently been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was living on the streets, committing small crimes such as theft, this is how he originally came to the attention of police. Andrew Mallard was then sentenced to life in prison after a series of interviews with police, later on the 20th February 2006 he was released after numerous faults in the original investigation including changes in evidence to suit the case of the prosecution (police) better as well as the unfair treatment of Mallard as he was singled out partly due to his mental condition and was not provided with proper support for this condition (bipolar disorder), as well as the fact that the lawyer he was provided with being far too inexperienced. Significant information had also later been found that was not provided to the courts originally proving him not guilty, Simon Rochford was then convicted of this murder after Mallard was released due to him matching with forensic evidence at the crime and having commit a similar murder prior, Rochford then commit suicide in prison.
In the Mallard case many principles used to ensure justice in the legal system were not upheld including equality before the law, the right to a fair trial, the right to an unbiased jury and judge and the right to appeal, it was the fact that these principles were overlooked that led to Mallards eventual wrongful conviction.
Equality before the law is one of the principles that were compromised greatly in the Mallard case, equality before the law being the principle that everyone should be treated equally in the legal system regardless of race, age, mental capacity and any other characteristics (the legal system including not only the courts but also other bodies such as the police force). During the Mallard case this principle was clearly not upheld in the mallard case as Andrew Mallard had been targeted by police and had his mental condition taken advantage of (he had recently been diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the time of the case). During many unrecorded police interviews Mallard was pressured into making false statements, an example of this being police telling Mallard that he had been seen at the shop, when at this time there were no witnesses, combined with repeated questioning this made Mallard doubt his memory (especially with his mental condition) and made him believe the police were telling the truth and caused him to falsely admit to being at the store, Mallard had been pressured to make many other statements in a similar way, lying to force a confession as these police did is against the law as this does not allow for a fair trial and is not treating Mallard equally. Another example is when police did not advise Mallard of his right to remain silent when they should have and did advise all other suspects in the case, Mallard was only made aware of this right hours into his interviews after already making statements unfavourable to him as he was unaware of this right. Mallard had also claimed that during his interviews he had been threatened to be shot, this obviously put pressure on him to make statements that were untrue, and favourable to the police instead of himself.
Andrew Mallard was clearly not given a good opportunity to present his views on the case as he had his mental condition taken advantage of (he had difficulty understanding police due to his bipolar disorder) causing him to make false statements that would help to prove the case of the police and he was singled out and threatened which is not in keeping with the principle of equality before the law as Mallard was treated unfairly and as inequal to others. Some improvements to better ensure this principle is upheld could be to make it a requirement to have all police interviews recorded and looked over, this would ensure that police can be held accountable for their actions during interviews and situations like in the Mallard case, for example where the police made threats in interviews, if these interviews were recorded action could obviously be taken against the police officers to ensure that police are treating suspects fairly.
The right to a fair trial is another principle that was largely compromised in this case, the right to a fair trial being the principle that the prosecution and defence should both be provided with the same equal opportunity to present their case, (this can include things such as interpreters being made available for those with limited understanding of the English language and similar)
In the case of Andrew Mallard this was clearly not upheld as information was withheld from the courts as well as Mallards defence team, there was also the use of information that had been proved as incorrect, as well as the lawyer Mallards defence team was provided with being inexperienced (Mallard could not afford a lawyer himself) there was also insufficient evidence in the court case to prove Mallard guilty (even with the false evidence), it is unheard of for a murder case to be closed (with a suspect being convicted) without even identifying the murder weapon, Mallard was also provided with no aid during interviews, even though he had been diagnosed with a mental condition and was clearly not capable of completing the interviews without additional support. Prior to the case Mallards defence team was not provided with most information gathered during the investigation, with some evidence favourable to the case of mallard being completely withheld from the courts. This obviously left Mallards defence team at a disadvantage as the any evidence in favour of Mallards innocence was not made available for the court case when it should have been. An example of this is that the whole case was based on the fact that Mallard commit the murder with a wrench which had been proven in a variety of tests to be false, yet the defence was not made aware of this information, which would have invalidated the case of the prosecution. Mallard was only convicted based off of what had been said in interviews, with no other evidence linking him to the crime, this is not standard for murder cases and not enough evidence was provided by the prosecution in the court case to meet the burden of proof (a principle designed to uphold the right to a fair trial, meaning that the accused is assumed not guilty until proven otherwise by the prosecution) that the prosecution should have been held to. Another way that this was not upheld was that the lawyer appointed to Mallard was far too inexperienced for the case (Mallard could not afford his own and so was provided one by a government funded organisation), with his lawyer having seen no other murder cases before being appointed to the case, especially compared to the prosecution, disadvantaging Mallards case once more as his lawyer was not as knowledgeable (especially on murder trials) and so could not put up as good of a case and had a worse understanding of court proceedings, as well as that they did not dispute the unreliable information provided by the prosecution despite there being clear problems in the case of the prosecution. During the interviews conducted by police Mallard should have been given support, and he should not have had to undergo interviews for such a long time or at all. This is because Mallard had difficulty understanding police due to his bipolar disorder and in multiple occasions stated that he did not understand questions asked by police, but was not given any support in this even though the doctor he had been seeing said he was unfit for interviewing, yet Mallard was not allowed any help during interviews. The complete disregard of Mallards condition and mistreatment from the police officers as he was threatened and lied to by officers, an example being the police lying to Mallard about witnesses as stated earlier, this led to Mallard making statements that were not representative of his perspective on the case and were untrue, obviously this meant that Mallard did not get a good opportunity to present his case as he was pressured into making statements he did not agree with by police.
Overall Mallard was not granted with his right to a fair trial as he was not given good opportunity to present his views on equal ground with the prosecution due to factors such as him being forced into making statements that were untrue, the lack of support during interviews that he needed, the use of incorrect information, and almost any information of use to Mallards defence being withheld from the courts, on top of this Mallards lawyer was severely inexperienced and should not have been appointed to that case. All of these factors are what contributed to the false outcome of the case and Mallards wrongful imprisonment as Mallard was presumed guilty before the case had began, being denied of many rights that he had, and any evidence in his favour was not made available to Mallard, although known by the police prosecution giving him no opportunity to present his case and giving the prosecution an unfair advantage in the case. Some possible solutions to further prevent this from occurring on top of existing rights and principles would be to have mandatory checks with medical and other professionals before undergoing interviews for serious crimes, the purpose of this would be to determine whether said person is able to undergo interviews and to advise whether or not said person required additional support for interviews, for example to gauge whether someone has a good enough understanding of English, or whether they need to be provided with aid to help them interpret questions. Lawyers that are provided to those who cannot afford them (like Mallard) should also have their past cases checked to determine whether they are experienced enough for the case.
The right to an unbiased judge and jury is another principle of justice, although not enough information was provided to determine how well this was upheld in the Mallard case. The right to an unbiased judge and jury refers to the fact that it is important that the judiciary (court system, including judges and the jury) is independent from the elected parliament/government meaning that judges are able to make decisions without the influence of these government bodies, to ensure a fair trial and that the law still applies even to the government, allowing the judiciary to ensure the government does not misuse or make laws that are beyond their power. Another requirement of the judiciary is to be impartial meaning that there is no bias of the judge/jury meaning that the judge is unaffected by the outcome of the case and so are able to fairly sentence those found guilty and also are able to ensure both parties are given equal opportunity to present their case the same applies to the judiciary in the way that there is to be no bias of any juror so they are able to decide the verdict based only on the information provided to them in court. When for example a juror knows of someone belonging to any party in the case they will be excused from the trial and replaced with someone else, this is to ensure that there is no bias in the jury so that no juror makes their decision based on information provided outside of the court.
In reports of the Mallard case there is no information regarding the judge/jury in the trial so I am forced to assume that there was no bias in those areas and that the result of the case was due mostly to the information provided by police which was very inaccurate. A real example of when this principle was upheld was in the well known case of Lloyd Rayney who was a barrister well known by many judges in WA (the state he lived in), when he was convicted for the murder of his wife, no judge could be appointed to the case that was unbiased (as they all knew him well) and so one was flown over from the Northern Territory to ensure that there was no bias of the judge and they would not base their decisions from any information given outside of court. Trial by media is also a common problem in court cases due to their public nature, often jurors/judges can be affected by information seen in the media outside of court to be prejudiced against a particular party and also can feel pressure if the majority of the public believes the accused is guilty/innocent.
Altogether there was not enough information to determine whether the jury or judge had any bias in this case but in the example of the Lloyd Rayney case this principle was upheld completely as a new impartial judge that did not know Rayney was flown over as a solution to the fact that all the local judges were biased towards him as they knew him personally.
The right to an appeal is another principle, in the Mallard case this was partially compromised. The purpose of appeals is to further ensure cases are solved in a fair and unbiased manor, those who are unsatisfied with the outcome of a case they were involved in can appeal for their case to be heard again by a higher court on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds for the police, for example an appeal could be made if it is proven that their trial was unfair and did not follow the rules of evidence the judge is supposed to uphold.
In the Mallard case the right to appeal was partially upheld as eventually Mallard was able to appeal to the High Court eventually but this was after many other attempts that were on reasonable grounds. Mallards original appeals were to the Criminal Court of Appeal and then he requested to appeal at the High Court, these were both rejected. While it could be argued that there had not been many further discoveries yet as to the legitimacy of the original material given in court or any further information at all, even in the original case there had not been enough evidence to warrant Mallard guilty, especially to the standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) that a criminal case requires with the only evidence being notes of interviews and a short video recorded section of one of Mallards interviews, it was also not standard procedure for murder cases, and almost unheard of to prosecute someone with no weapon or other physical evidence linking them to the crime. Mallard was not originally granted his right to appeal as even these reasonable claims were denied seemingly for no reason. Eventually a petition was handed in after more information had been discovered and results from the tests conducted by the police had been found leading to another appeal to the Criminal Court of Appeal and rejected on the basis that information outside the original trial could not be considered but after this the High Count upheld the appeal on the grounds that unlike the Criminal Court of Appeal had done evidence should not be limited to that of the original trial in this particular case (as the original information was completely false), with Mallard getting a re-trial and then found not guilty.
Although Mallard was granted an appeal after some time, his original requests were denied without reason regardless of the fact that Mallard had reasonable grounds for the appeal, being that there was no proper evidence convicting him, his case did not follow the standard procedures of a murder case and he did not receive a fair trial indicating that Mallards right to appeal may have been undermined in this case. Possible ways to improve this could be to review recordings of the original court case when an appeal is requested to determine whether enough information was provided to warrant prosecuting someone and whether the amount of evidence is consistent across different cases (murder cases were never solved without identifying a weapon), obviously there would still be issues with the information provided by the police but this isn’t an issue with the court system. In cases new information should be able to be used as well in appeals in situations where it contradicts existing evidence, although eventually this happened in the Mallard case generally new information would not be used.
In conclusion multiple of the principles of justice were not upheld in this case, those being the right to a fair trial, equality before the law and the right to appeal. Due to Mallard being targeted by the police largely due to his mental condition, and the fact that he had trouble understanding the police because of his condition which was taken advantage of as the police believed he was guilty with no evidence, being treated inequally by police to force him into making false statements and information being withheld from Mallards defence team and the courts, Mallards inexperienced lawyer and the prosecution not upholding the burden of proof, all putting Mallard at a significant disadvantage to others and altogether cause an causing the outcome of the case to be incorrect and Mallards wrongful imprisonment.
My original essay is shown below, with the blue highlighted sections being the original and the rest is what i have added after receiving feedback on my work
