Our legal system aims to follow the principles of justice to be an impartial legal system. However, there are also flaws in our legal system. In the case of the Perth Mint Swindle, some of the principles of justice were compromised. However, there were also principles of justice that were supported in the case. Equal treatment before the law, the burden and standard of proof, and the right to silence were compromised. The Mickelbergs had their right to appeal, with the exception of one which was rejected.
The Perth Mint Swindle case was the robbery of 49 gold bars from the Perth Mint in Western Australia on 22 June 1982. Ray, Brian and Peter Mickelberg were accused of the robbery. They have allegedly made a transaction with stolen cheques. When Peter Mickelberg was questioned by two police officers, Don Hancock, and Tony Lewandowski, he was beaten and forced to confess. The Mickelbergs were convicted in 1983. They made seven appeals; six to the Western Australia Court of Criminal Appeal and one for the High Court but failed. Peter Mickelberg’s appeal in 1989 was rejected. In 2002, Tony Lewandowski confessed in the Royal Commission that he fabricated the evidence with Don Hancock. In 2004, the Mickelbergs’ convictions were overturned. This case still remains unsolved to this date.
Equal treatment before the law was not supported in this case. Equality before the law means that people are to be treated fairly and equally when dealing with the law, regardless of their background and status. This principle of justice is important in developing a fair legal system because it prevents people being mistreated, and also prevents anyone from being above the law because of their power or influence. In the Perth Mint Swindle case, the police treated Peter Mickelberg unfairly, by beating him, forcing him to confess and violating his rights. During the questioning, Hancock and Lewandowski made sure that no other police were there at the time. When Mickelberg asked for his solicitor, Lewandowski said, “You’re on another planet, no one knows you’re here. As far as they’re concerned, you could be dead.”The police officers treated Mickelberg unfairly, he didn’t have his right to legal representation when it was asked for and was abused by the police during the questioning. Therefore, equality before the law was compromised in this case.
The burden and standard of proof, which means that the burden lies with the police to prove that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, was compromised in this case. This principle is significant to help make our legal system just and fair, because it helps prevent people from being wrongfully accused and convicted. It also prevents people from being mistreated. In the Perth Mint Swindle case, this principle was compromised because the police had little evidence that supported their conspiracy against the Mickelbergs. The police lied that Ray Mickelberg’s fingerprint was found on a false cheque involved in the robbery. The jury decided that the Mickelbergs were guilty, believing the police. However, one piece of evidence cannot prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Mickelbergs were just assumed as guilty due to the fact that they were involved in a crime relating to a manufactured gold nugget known as the Yellow Rose of Texas. Therefore, this principle was compromised in the case.
The right to silence means that people are allowed to remain silent during the investigation and trial, with the exception of providing their name and address. This principle was compromised in the case of the Perth Mint Swindle. The right to silence is important to building a fair legal system because people involved in the case might be impacted heavily and be unable to speak or remember the truth. In the case of the Perth Mint Swindle, Peter Mickelberg did not have his right to silence during the questioning, since the police abused him when he did not confess. “It was then that Hancock punched me in the solar plexus on at least two or three times…I was pretty shocked. He then chopped me…in the throat,” Peter Mickelberg recalled. Therefore, the right to silence was compromised in this case.
The right to appeal was supported to a certain degree. The right to appeal means that people are granted the right to take their case to a higher court if they believe that the decision made by the lower court was incorrect. This principle is important to help develop a fair legal system because it prevents people from being wrongfully convicted. In the Perth Mint Swindle case, the Mickelbergs made seven appeals: six to the Western Australia Court of Criminal Appeal and one to the High Court. However, Peter Mickelberg’s appeal to the Western Australia Court of Criminal Appeal in 1989 was rejected. Therefore, the right to appeal was supported, but to a certain extent.
In the case of the Perth Mint Swindle, some principles of justice were compromised, but there were also principles that were supported. Equality before the law, the burden and standard of proof, and the right to silence were not supported. The right to appeal was supported, but only to a certain extent. Justice was achieved in the end, when the Mickelbergs’ convictions were overturned. Ultimately, there is room for improvement in our legal system, and the principles of justice are very significant to help make our legal system fair.