What is the Andrew Mallard case?
Andrew Mark Mallard, a British-born Australian who was wrongfully convicted and charged with murder back in 1995. He was sentenced to life in prison for murdering a Perth woman Pamela Lawrence, at her jewelry shop (Flora Metallica). Mr. Mallard was apparently trudged his way to Flora Metallica where he brutally killed Pamela Lawrence in broad daylight. His extensive case to fight and clear his rightful name is on a podcast featuring the key events, police corruption, and many other unjustified acts. Podcast by ABC news- http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/earshot/wrongful-andrew-mallard/9156696.
What are the principles of justice and how were they incorporated in the case?
There are a number of principles of justice that are designed to help and protect the rights of Australian citizens hence many staples of justice. Our legal system offers many principles of justice including reliable evidence which is evidence that can be proved to be correct like DNA, Right to legal representation meaning the defendant has a right to have assistance in court from lawyers. If the defendant can’t afford a lawyer, the government has to appoint one, appeals which a request for a higher court to look at a case to see if the decision was unfair and if so, to redo the trial. Unlike a normal case, these principles of justice were neglected in Andrew Mallard’s case due to immense pressure from the public forming on the police as she was killed in broad daylight.
The principle of legal and reliable evidence was violated and tampered with in Andrew Mallard’s case which affected the decision dearly. When exploring the case police interfered with the evidence due to pressure forming day to day by the public. Police sent his only pair of shoes to the forensic lab and they found 1 drop of blood which was the same type as the victim. Note that this blood type is rare and only 4% of the population has the same blood type. This was the only semi-reliable evidence found in Andrew Mallard’s case. While in court police asked Andrew Mallard what do you think was the murder weapon, he started his theory and started drawing the so-called murder weapon as he really thought the police were trying to get evidence from Andrew Mallard. He drew something called a syd comb wrench and was later found guilty 12 weeks later. This was not reliable evidence as police took control of the mental illness that he had been struggling from. After the verdict, it was found that the pathologist said that a wrench couldn’t have killed Pamela Lawrence’s death/injuries, after testing it on a pig’s head. Mr. Mallard later discussed with the press that he was forced to say the words that were given to him in the integration room by the police. this evidence wasn’t shown to anyone due to the police’s request. This shows that police corruption is valid and can happen to everyone.
Another element of Andrew Mallard’s case was the principle of the right to legal representation. When the defendant which was Mr. Mallard couldn’t afford a lawyer as he was previously homeless he was given a lawyer that was appointed by the government. As he was facing a criminal sentence and charge it is highly important to have a lawyer that can help you. However, Andrew was given an inexperienced lawyer which didn’t investigate the case to its full extent. This was a major factor in the case as it lead to him being in jail for 20 years. This again shows that government and police corruption can exist as he was sent a newly trained lawyer that only had experience in minor cases(not cases in the Supreme court).
The principle of this case that was violated is Appeals. This principle was also neglected during this case as the judge couldn’t think that police corruption was a valid argument for the case to re-open. During the trial, there was a 13-year-old girl who was driving home from school and locked eyes with the murderer in the jewelry store( her description was nowhere near what Andrew looked like (she also noted the time that was in the car 5:02 that’s when police got interested). As said before this appeal was denied as this level of police corruption was unthinkable. This decision was unfair as it wasn’t looked at by the higher court, therefore, ticking off red flags that this principle of justice wasn’t considered during the appeal.
What happened after he was freed?
As said the pig test was reviled to the court and later they could access the police files which reviled the original witness statement did not correspond with the second and third statements which were presented to the court on the police’s behalf. He was later freed and awarded 3.25 million dollars for all the harm that was forced onto Mr. Mallard. He was set free but still was called a murderer. Again this demonstrates that police corruption was possible but couldn’t be identified due to the media’s reaction. This lead him to flee to the United Kingdom with a frequent flyer to the United States which lead to his death. A corruption and Crime commission was held to alleged the misconduct by police officers in this case. They broke all the rules of being a police and later resigned to the WA police force.