Andrew Mallard was locked up for 12 years for something he did not even do! Andrew Mallard was wrongfully convicted in 1995 of murdering jeweller Pamela Lawrence at her Mosman Park shop on May 23, 1994. He was sentenced to life imprisonment but in 2006 walked free after 12 years in jail. There was a lot of unfairness throughout Andrew mallards case. Some of the principles were followed some were not followed and were compromised.


Andrew mallard 2 days before he got accused of murder

Andrew Mallard faced court many times. The police determined Andrew was this killer. He faced court several times but not all times were a very fair and equal way. In all equal before law in Australian legal system all parties regardless of their race, sex, income, religious age, or any illness should be treated equally by the police, court personnel and any other legal authorities. In this case it would be compromised and was not upheld. This case is compromised because the police stated his bipolar disorder and stated that this disorder could have a big impact on his behaviour. As I stated in the Australian law should not treat differently. This was because the main investigators were not impartial and were based to the view, he was guilty, and his disorder affected this. The police always stated that this disorder could affect his behaviour as at his pretrial he was in a stage of the bipolar disorder.

Another main principle is a right to hear a fair hearing. This is another big principle and falls under Andrews case as compromised. The principle of fair hearing was compromised this is compromised as the judge in this case did not allow all the evidence to be presented and was not very fair on evidence to be shown and one of the principles, he would have all right to present evidence. After all the investigation and court trails we later found out police kept some evidence and did not let it be shown this connects to a fair hearing as in the Australian law it says no one should be condemned unheard and Andrew mallard did not get to be heard as some of the evidence was not out and this means he did not get to have say and did not get heard. The investigation also did not film much of the meeting but when they did start to record, they were giving Andrew leading questions and questions trying to make Andrew say he just said this and that and this would not fit under the fair hearing principle of justice as it was not him saying it there for, he did not get heard

Principle of justice right to responsible appeal was also used in Andrew case. In an attempt for case to be resolved in a fair manner defendant have all right to appeal. The principle of impartiality was upheld as Andrew mallard could appeal and he appealed over 10 times. In the outcome of all the cases they have the right to appeal, and Andrew had all right to and he did which got him to prove he was not guilty which got him out of jail 12 years later.

In conclusion Andrews case was a good example to show upheld and compromised in one case. As you can tell his case was very unfair but had a few little upheld things and many things could be changed for an improvement.