There are multiple principles of justice that are aimed to be followed by courts and tribunals. The seven main principles are everyone is equal before the law, everyone has the right to a fair hearing, the judiciary is impartial and independent, the right to an appeal, the right to silence, the presumption of innocence and high-quality evidence. All these principles must be followed in court and if they are not, then there is a higher chance that someone may be wrongfully charged. An example of when a case where some of these principles were not followed was the Andrew Mallard case. Andrew Mallard was accused of a murder that occurred in 1994. Andrew Mallard spent 12 years in prison and was finally released after a journalist, a politician and high-profile lawyers proved he did not commit the murder. Some of the principles of justice that have failed to be followed include the right to silence, inequality before the law and a lack of high-quality evidence. Andrew Mallard experienced injustice before the law as he had mental illness and he was not provided with assistance, and it is thought that he was fed information to by the police. The judiciary was impartial as they were heavily influenced by the media. There was a lack of high-quality evidence as some evidence was withheld from the court that would have proved his innocence. Andrew Mallard was convicted because of a failure to follow the principles of justice.

The first principle of justice that was compromised in the Andrew Mallard case was the right to silence. The right to silence means that a suspect does not have to answer any questions except their name and address in an interrogation. Andrew’s right to silence was compromised in this case as an undercover followed Andrew for multiple days after he exited a mental hospital and acted as his friend to try and get force evidence from him. The undercover officer gave alcohol, hotel rooms, meals and cannabis. Andrew Mallard was also questioned in the hospital without a mental health nurse so he might not have understood that he did not have to answer the questions. Finally, Andrew Mallard had a behavioural issue of being a people pleaser and with this behaviour, he felt obligated to accept the police statements and answer questions the way they wanted him to. Andrew later denied all his statements because he did not agree with them and realized that he could possibly go to jail for a crime that he did not commit. Andrew Mallard’s right to silence in this case was compromised due to manipulation, and behavioural and mental issues.

Another principle that was compromised in the Andrew Mallard case was the lack of high-quality evidence. This was possibly the most compromised. The principle of high-quality justice means that enough evidence should be provided to prove that there is beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty or not guilty. The first issue in this case regarding high-quality evidence was Andrew’s statements and alibies were not accepted by the police so this led to Andrew’s opinion and account not being taken into the investigation. When Andrew was first questioned, he was in a psychotic state meaning that he was having trouble understanding the world and he did not have assistance from a mental health nurse. The only solid evidence for his conviction of Andrew was his acceptance that he committed the murder and an image of a wrench that was thought to have been drawn by Andrew in an un-filmed interview. Withheld evidence was found 12 years later that proved that the wrench could not have caused the injuries suffered by Pamela Lawrence. High-quality evidence was not provided throughout Andrews’s initial trial which led to his 12 yearlong incarceration.

The last principle of justice that I will discuss is equality before the law. Equality before the law means that everyone no matter their race, sex, sexuality, culture, language background or mental capacity is treated the same. This means that people who cannot understand the legal system can get support to help them in a case. This principle was compromised throughout Andrew Mallard’s case. Andrew was first questioned in a mental hospital while in a psychotic state and did not have a mental health nurse or legal aid to help him. This could have given false information to the police which would have helped to have enough information for his arrest. Andrew had a behavioural issue of being a people pleaser. Throughout many hours of interrogation, Andrew accepted many of the statements and answered the questions to make the police satisfied. This was not his actual opinion and statement and later in the interrogation, he denied all that he first agreed with. Years later, it was found that Andrew was stripped naked and beaten in order to get information. Police brutality is illegal in most countries but is often used due to corruption. Andrew Mallard was treated unequally by the police so equality before the law was compromised.

In the Andrew Mallard case, the principles of justice were poorly followed by the courts, police, and investigators. The main principles that affected were compromised in this case were the principles of high-quality evidence, equality before the law and the right to silence. The principle of high-quality evidence was compromised by the court system, the police, and investigators. If this principle was followed, a more just decision would have been possible as the court would have had the evidence to prove that Andrew Mallard did not commit the crime. If the right to silence would have been followed, then Andrew Mallard would not have had to go through hours of interrogation due to the state of his mental health. Finally, if Andrew was treated equally before the law, he would not have experienced the police brutality and would have had legal aid to help him at the start of the process to help prove his innocence and reinforce that he was innocent. Andrew Mallard was punished due to a compromise of most of the main principles of justice.