The principles of justice are principles designed to make it fair for everyone and make sure everyone has an equal courtroom experience. These principles are important because they make sure nobody is above the law and that everyone is treated equally in court no matter their race, gender, background, or age, as well as resolving legal disputes and criminal cases in the fairest way possible. An example of a principle of justice is the presumption of innocence. This means that the accused is presumed innocent until they are proven guilty with sufficient evidence. Another example of a principle of justice is that the judiciary is independent and impartial. This means that the judge and jury are all impartial and are not affected by outside information. Another example of an important principle of justice is equality before the law. This means that everyone is treated the same by the legal system, no matter their age, gender, race, ethnicity, income level, and mental capacity. Through an investigation of the Andrew Mallard case, it will be shown that these principles were breached and violated.
The Andrew Mallard case involved many principles of justice that were breached. The principle of equality before the law was violated in the Andrew Mallard case. Equality before the law means that everyone is treated the same by the law, no matter their age, race, gender, ethnicity, living situation, income level, and mental capacity. This principle is important in our world because it helps keep the legal system fair and equal. This principle was violated in the Andrew Mallard case. In this case, the police took advantage of his mental capacity as he had several mental illnesses and was also prone to delusions. An example of how the police took advantage of him was how there was 8 hours of unrecorded interview where the police beat and abused Mallard and told him confidential information which he was made to recite on camera. This is completely unfair because Mallard was under the impression that he was helping the police come up with theories and help them find the real killer. They took advantage of Andrew Mallard’s mental disabilities, since because of his mental capacity he was unaware that he was being framed by the police and thought he was doing the right thing and helping the police. Another example of how this principle was upheld was how the authorities took advantage of Andrew Mallard’s living situation. At the time of the murder, Mallard was homeless and a drug addict. This made him the perfect person to frame as he was such an easy target. The police also used his living situation as a reason for the possible motive for the murder. In the future, this issue could have been avoided by having fair and unbiased police officers that don’t take advantage of people. This example demonstrates that the principle of justice equality before the law was heavily violated in the Andrew Mallard case.
Another major element of the Andrew Mallard case was how the principle of justice presumption of innocence was violated. In this case, the police straight away assumed that Andrew Mallard was the killer and their main suspect. Presumption of innocence means that the accused is presumed as innocent until he is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt with sufficient high quality evidence. This means that if there is not enough solid evidence to prove the accused guilty, then the accused is presumed innocent. This principle of justice is extremely important because it keeps it fair for everyone and reduces the number of false accusations. This principle of justice was compromised in the Andrew Mallard case. On the 23rd of May 1994, Pamela Lawrence was violently struck in the head. Mallard was instantly named as one of the prime suspects. He had a history of criminal offences, as just before the murder he was being kept in a psychiatric hospital for attempting burglary while impersonating a police officer. The police also had some other names in mind, but none were interrogated as much as Mallard. Many suspects were also dropped after the police decided that Mallard did actually kill Pamela Lawrence, which ended up being a false accusation. They decided this after they started interrogating Mallard. Andrew Mallard had underlying mental illnesses and was also prone to delusions. During the interrogation, Mallard came up with the theory that the murderer struck and killed Pamela Lawrence with a wrench. At the time, the police was aware that Pamela Lawrence was struck with a blunt weapon. This led to them believing that Mallard was guilty, although after the analysis of Pamela’s body, there were no marks indicating that the murder weapon was actually a wrench. There was also no forensic evidence that supported the claim that Mallard was guilty, but the police still believed that he was. This does not follow the principle of justice presumption of innocence, because Mallard was presumed guilty by the police with little supporting evidence. This mistreatment that Mallard faced can be avoided in the future by having police officers that follow the principles of justice and don’t jump to conclusions. These examples prove that the investigation of Andrew Mallard was extremely unfair and the principle of justice presumption of innocence was heavily compromised.
The principle of justice right to remain silent was upheld in the Andrew Mallard case. The principle of justice right to silence means that anyone has the right to refuse to answer questions from anyone in the legal system, including the police and court officials. This principle stops people from accidentally releasing incriminating information that could be used against them in court. This principle was compromised in the Andrew Mallard case. An example of this is how he was taken to the police station and was there for 8 hours without the knowledge of his family and legal representation. He was then forced to answer questions and repeat information that the police had told him. He was unable to refuse the questions because he was beaten and physically abused if he didn’t. He also was never fully aware of what he was saying and where he was and what he was doing because of his mental illnesses. In the future, this can be avoided by having interrogations run fairly and have family and legal representation present during the interrogations to deter the authorities from doing the wrong thing. This example demonstrates that the police treated him extremely unfairly and that the principle of justice right to silence was upheld in the case of Andrew Mallard.
One of the many principles of justice that was violated is high quality evidence. High quality evidence means that all evidence presented in court is obtained lawfully and it is reliable and from a trustworthy source. This principle is extremely important as it can alter the outcome of a case and change the decision of the judge and jury. In the case of Andrew Mallard, this principle was upheld by the authorities. A lot of the evidence was tampered with by the police or not present in the trial. An example is the wrench that Andrew Mallard talked about in his interview. This was the item that Mallard claimed to be the murder weapon. After this information from Mallard, a test was run by a forensic Pathologist to see whether a wrench was capable of creating the same marks left on Pamela Lawrence’s body. It was concluded that the wrench couldn’t have possibly been the murder weapon. This important piece of information was never even shown in court and seen by the judge. Another way this principle was violated was the witness statement of 13 year-old Katie Barston. Katie stated that she was driving past the jewelry shop at 5:02, but it was proven that Mallard was nowhere near the shop during that time. On top of that, the description she provided of the man she saw outside the shop was distinctly different from Mallard. A lot more evidence was tampered with, such as the saltwater tests done on Mallard’s clothes, the blood sample from his shoes, and how there was no forensic evidence proving that he was the murderer. In the future, this mistake could be avoided by having more thorough testing done and having all tests and evidence presented in court, no matter the outcome. These examples prove that the principle of justice high quality evidence was violated in the case of Andrew Mallard.
A principle of justice that was actually supported in the Andrew Mallard case is the right to an appeal. Right to appeal means that people have the right to appeal or challenge rulings given out by judges, as long as they provide reasonable grounds to do so. This principle is important because it gives people that were wrongfully sentenced the opportunity to prove themselves as innocent and avoid punishments they don’t deserve. This principle of justice was supported in the Andrew Mallard case as he was given many chances to appeal for another trial to prove his innocence. After more solid evidence was found and the trial was re-run, Andrew Mallard was finally proven as innocent and was released from prison after 12 years. He was compensated $3.25 million (USD) to make up for this unfair treatment he had gone through. If not for the right to appeal Andrew Mallard would have never been released early and might still be in jail today. This example demonstrates that the principle of justice right to appeal was supported in this case.