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.

Born on 16^th August 1962 Andrew Mallard was a lead suspect of the murder of Pamera Lawrence in 1994. After further investigation, the police pulled a ‘confession’ from him and he was arrested in late 1995. The Mallard family however believed he was genuinely innocent and seeked help from a journalist and an ex-Sargent. After an appeal in 2006 they appealed, and a re-trial was ordered. They won the trial, and he was released.  In this case the principles of justice mainly were not upheld. Most notable being his Inexperienced lawyer and the unfair treatment of police due to his mental disease.

The principle of justice in this case where mainly compromised. On way in which the principles of justice was compromised was shown in an 11 hour interview that the police did with Andrew. Andrew has a diagnose Mental disease and that made him fantasize about the murder. he was giving away theories about possibilities such as the murder weapon and place of death. The police took this as a confession but Andrew believed the police were interested in his abstract theories. This ‘confession’ was the police’s main argument in court. To avoid problems like this in the future the police should find forensic evidence about Andrew’s theories before jumping to conclusions. The polices case was very rushed due to the overwhelming pressure

The principle of justice are laws that is put in place to protect individuals when dealing with our legal system. These laws include:

• Equality before the law: regardless of their race, gender, income level or mental capacity all cases should be treated the same when dealing with our legal system. This include police and legal personnel.
• Right to a fair hearing: Some people are disadvantaged due to background so we create laws to make sure everyone is treated equally. One being right to a legal representative in order to help low income individuals
• Judiciary has to be independent: His means that the court is separated from parliament and the media. This is to ensure the outcome is based on the information in court, nowhere else.
• Right to an appeal: If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of a trial, you can appeal and appeals in many cases save individuals from unlawful arrest such as Andrew Mallard.

SUPPORTED

Most aspect of the Andrew Mallard case wear compromised however the right to an appeal was supported in assisting the defendant in proving his innocence. When initially put in jail in 1995, his family was confident that he was truly innocent. Malcolm Mccusker was hired by the Mallard family in a desperate attempt to free Andrew from rotting in prison. Malcolm was previously a very respect Sergeant in the police force and proved this by finding a lab test that the police withheld from the court. The lab test contained an experiment where the suspected murder weapon was trialed on a pig’s head(which has a similar skull structure to a human). If this lab test was shown to court, then the entire prosecution case would have been compromised. With this new information the Mallard family presented this is court in 2001. Their argument heavily relied on the police being corrupt which the judge found difficult to believe and their appeal was denied. They appealed once again in 2006 and that time, their appeal was sustain and Mr Mallard was released along with a 3.25 million dollar compensation.

IMPROVEMENTS

Although the right appeal was eventually supported, this process could have been quicker if we had a less biased judge. The judge relied on the common thought that the police were corrupt and would do something illegal. This compromised the principle that the judiciary has to be independent. If this principle was sustain and the judge made his decision on the information presented in court and not his prior knowledge.

COMPROMISED

The principle of justice in this case where mainly compromised. On way in which the principles of justice was compromised was shown in an 11 hour interview that the police did with Andrew. Andrew has a diagnose Mental disease and that made him fantasize about the murder. he was giving away theories about possibilities such as the murder weapon and place of death. The police took this as a confession but Andrew believed the police were interested in his abstract theories. This ‘confession’ was the police’s main argument in court.

IMPROVEMENTS

To avoid problems like this in the future the police should find forensic evidence about Andrew’s theories before jumping to conclusions. The polices case was very rushed due to the overwhelming pressure from media which also caused them.

COMPROMISED

Another way the principles of justice were compromised was when he was assigned an inexperienced lawyer and when he requested a new lawyer, the request was denied. His lawyer was so inexperience that the facts that the prosecution had not found forensic evidence wasn’t explored at all. What’s more, the police admitted to going undercover as a drug dealer planting jewelry to Mr Mallard. The evidence was lost but many witnesses saw him with the jewelry.

IMPROVEMENTS:

The second principle of justice need to be supported as Andrew had a new and inexperienced lawyer compared to the prosecution. The request should not have been denied and the planted evidence was simply the police being corrupted.

CONCLUSION:

The principles of justice was not upheld in this case except for his extremely lengthy appea. He was treated unequally and needed to be taken more cautiously when dealing with someone with a mental disability. If the stated improvements were met, Andrew would not have spent 12 years in prison.

He was released in 2006 and enjoyed his final days on earth. He unfortunately died from a car crash in 2018.