Our legal system aims to always follow the principles of justice, but on rare occasions, it fails to do so. One of these rare occasions was the case of Andrew Mallard, where many principles of justice were compromised. Innocent until proven guilty, equal treatment before the law, burden of proof and standard of proof were just some of the principles compromised in this extremely unjust case. However, the right to appeal was one of the few principles of justice supported in this case.
It all started when Pamela Lawrence, a successful woman with 2 kids was bludgeoned to death in the back of her upscale jewellery store, Flora Metallica on the 23rd of May 1994. Her husband found her barely alive, and she died on the way to the hospital in the ambulance. Andrew Mallard, a troubled young man with a marijuana addiction and several mental health issues was a suspect in her murder. Initially, there were 130 suspects, but the police zeroed in on Mallard, who at the time of the murder had been diagnosed with hypomania, bipolar disorder, and depression. Andrew Mallard was convicted the following year based on 2 pieces of evidence, a set of police notes that the police claim he confessed in (these had not been signed by Mallard) and a video of the last 20 minutes of 11 hours’ worth of interviews. In the video, it shows Mallard offering a theory as to how Pamela may have been murdered. Police took this as a confession, even though it was given in the third person.
Innocent until proven guilty means that the accused cannot be called guilty until it has been proved, and the accused is to be treated as innocent throughout the investigation and trial. This is a very important principle of justice, to protect the integrity of the justice system and to ensure a fair and just trial. Unfortunately, this principle was compromised in the case of Andrew Mallard. Initially, the police had 130 suspects, but when they found a drop of blood on Andrew’s boots, they immediately focused on him, even though lab tests proved that it was Mallard’s own blood, not Pamela’s. The police immediately started claiming Mallard was guilty, and the media followed suit, calling him a murderer and guilty. However, he had not been proved guilty, so this is how this principle of justice was compromised.
The principle equal treatment before the law states that everyone is to be treated equally with no bias or discrimination, regardless of their race, religion, gender, mental or physical disabilities, sexual orientation, lifestyle, or any other factors. This principle is extremely crucial to the justice system, as it ensures that no one is discriminated against and everyone is given a punishment suited for the crime and that the results of the trial have nothing to do with personal bias. This was another principle of justice broken for Andrew Mallard. Andrew Mallard had been in the psychiatric hospital when police pulled him out with no legal representation or anybody for support for questioning, police then took advantage of his mental state, giving him pieces of information to repeat back to them, to make it seem as if Mallard was confessing. The police let Mallard believe he was helping them when he offered a theory as to how Pamela Lawrence may have been murdered and then recorded him offering this theory which they then used against him in court, calling it a confession. They assumed Mallard was guilty, even when his poor mental state was to blame for his suspicious behaviour. Andrew had mental health issues and was frequently high due to his troubled childhood, which the police used against him. This would not have happened to someone without mental illness, so Andrew was treated unequally before the law, compromising this principle of justice.
The burden of proof and standard of proof means that the job of proving guilt is put on the prosecution and that the proof must be of beyond reasonable doubt. This principle is crucial in ensuring that only guilty people get sent to jail, and they do not accidentally incriminate an innocent person. The burden of proof being put on the prosecution also helps to support the principle of justice that is innocent until proven guilty, as it is the job of the prosecution to prove guilt, not the accused job of proving innocence. This was another principle that was compromised for Andrew Mallard. The only “evidence” the police had against Mallard was the police notes and the video recording. In the video recording, Mallard states that Pamela was probably murdered with a wrench, and in the trial, police claim that Mallard had murdered Pamela with a wrench. But in a pathology report later uncovered by Colleen Egan, an investigative journalist and John Quigley a lawyer, they found the report saying that a test was done with a wrench on a pig’s head (similar to a human’s head) and the wound pattern was distinctively different to the one on Pamela’s head, confirming a wrench could not have been the murder weapon. This piece of crucial evidence was concealed from Mallard’s original defence team and was not brought into court. The 20-minute video was also not of high standard evidence, since it was given in the third person and Mallard believed he was helping the police. There was one witness in this case, who was going past Pamela’s jewellery shop on the day of her murder, where this witness saw a tall, Caucasian male with a ginger beard and bandana standing behind the counter. This did not match Mallard’s description, and this was also ignored in court, compromising this principle of justice.
One principle that was supported, was the right to appeal. The right to appeal is when a person who has been convicted of a crime has the right to appeal, which is an application to a higher court because they believe the decision of a lower court was unfair or incorrect. The right to appeal is important because it ensures that courts can arrive at the correct decision, and also gives the opportunity to correct any mistakes made in the past trial. Andrew Mallard was able to appeal to both the Supreme and High courts multiple times with his new team of Colleen Egan and John Quigley. At first, they were not successful, but eventually, a retrial was ordered and finally, after 12 years in jail, Mallard had all charges against him dropped. In this case, the right to appeal was supported.
In conclusion, in the rare case of Andrew Mallard, justice was not always upheld, but our legal system continues to improve and strives to uphold justice always.