In the recent HASS project, we learnt about the principles of justice that uphold Australia’s legal system, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and the right to legal representation. Here I studied the case of the Mickelberg brothers, 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 from multiple people 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, clearly communicate through the written medium, and to refine it to produce a professional result.
The result is as follows:
Ever since January 1st, 1901 the justice system in Australia has improved the principles of justice which ensure that all are treated fairly under the law.
The Perth Mint Swindle, also known as the Mickelbergs’ case, happened on the 22nd of June in 1982 in which 49 gold bars, valued $653,000 at the time, was robbed from the Perth Mint and seemingly disappeared after being picked up.
The Mickelberg brothers, Brian, Peter, and Raymond, were then falsely convicted leading them to spend many years in imprisonment until they were able to be released on appeal in 2004. In this case the principles of justice were partially upheld. The main principles I will explore in this essay which was present in this case was the right for a fair trial, the impartial independence of the judiciary, and equality before the law, however it is not limited to these.
The right for a fair trial is important to be upheld to ensure all are judged fairly and this includes having a public hearing, impartial judiciary and all individuals being treated equally before the law. In this case the right to have a fair trial using reliable evidence was fully compromised. The main evidence used for the Mickelberg’s conviction consisted of a statement made by Peter Mickelberg during an interview and a statement made by Mrs Holz (a key witness to the Mickelbergs’ conviction) during trial questioning of witnesses, and both were found unreliable later.
In 2002, Tony Lewandowski (one of the two policemen who questioned the Mickelbergs) confessed involvement in the fabrication of the statement with Don Hancock (the senior officer of the investigation at the time). The statement was assumed to be made on July 26th 1982 when the statements was in fact fabricated by both Lewandowski and Hancock on 2nd September 1982. This fabrication by the police brings evidence like the fingerprint of Raymond Mickelberg found on a cheque to pay for part of the gold stolen brought under suspicion.
Statements from Mrs Holz had told the 1998 Court that Peter made several admissions boasting, while mentioning the gold several times, “the police would never be able to prove that they had stolen the gold”, and that he had purchased the car from a couple wearing a wig and false name. This statement greatly implicated Peter and Raymond’s appeals and the statement was even found unreliable later. For example, in an affidavit (written statement prepared by a party or witness voluntarily which you swear the contents are true before a person authorized like a lawyer or Justice of the Peace) Mrs Holz had sworn on the 23rd of January in 2003, she referred to an affidavit she had sworn in 1998, and admitted she had “felt harassed into doing so” some three and a half months before 1998. She also admitted that even her evidence that was sworn before the Justice of Peace to the 1998 Court was false. As such the evidence we have received from Mrs Holz, a key witness, was largely inconsistent and unreliable.
This was absolutely unfair as it led to the Mickelbergs’ conviction with the jury from both the initial conviction and seven appeals after to reach a decision on false and unreliable evidence. Even, the evidence by witness statements by court questioning is brought under scrutiny when using them in appeals as late as 2004.
While they received settlement from suing the WA government for libel (published false statement), part of which was a public apology from the WA police in December 2007, what could happen next time is further investigation by the police with fair treatment.
The independence of the judiciary was strongly supported which allowed justice in this aspect of the right to a fair trial to be upheld. The judiciary needs to be independent, impartial and unbiased with their decisions. During the trial in which the Mickelbergs were convicted, the judge and jury was fairly unbiased and independent when considering the known evidence at the time of the conviction and number appeals before 2002.
The known evidence that was presented to the jury against the Mickelberg’s included statements made by Peter Mickelberg in a police interview, witness statements testifying the Mickelberg’s intention to rob the gold during cross-examination, and fingerprints on a false cheque to the Perth Mint (there were all to be found either fabricated or unreliable after 2002).
For all the Mickelberg trials, all judges and juries were from Western Australia. There may be a possibility that their decisions may be biased in ways such as forming their own opinions when they hear of the reported case over the years as appeals as late as 2002 happened, this was nearly twenty years after the Perth Mint Swindle. However overall, this principal was supported. The initial issue was with the executive side of the government especially the police at the time, and another way to lower the bias in the judiciary is to send judges from other states like in the Lloyd Rayney case where his case was reviewed by a former Northern Territory chief of justice.
Equality before the law is about all individuals treated fairly and unbiased towards their race, ethnic background, gender, social background, and beliefs, and in this case, it was mostly compromised. The Mickelberg brothers were treated unfairly and were perhaps even targeted by the police for their conviction. When Lewandowski confessed involvement with the fabrication of the statement, he also confessed that the head of the case, Don Hancock was also involved where they were coerced Peter Mickelberg to signing the statement after forcing him to strip and with Hancock punching Peter after. This is quite unfair to them as it also compromises his right as the victim or accused to stay silent to not self-increment. This false statement provided key evidence to the Mickelbergs conviction and even their appeal cases until 2002.
On the other hand, the Mickelbergs were able to still have the right to appeal. In fact, they appealed seven times after their conviction in 1984 while in jail. Even during sentencing, their ages were considered as Brian Mickelberg received the lightest sentence out of the three as the youngest with 12yrs in jail, 16yrs for Peter, while Raymond being oldest, received 20yrs. Peter and Raymond were also able to be released on parole (spend time out of jail within certain restrictions) and this suggest they were allowed this as they were both married and with children. This supports equality before the law where they were treated equally by the judiciary as well as having their details considered.
Overall justice in the Mickelbergs case was mostly compromised but were partially upheld as well. After their conviction being overturned in July 2004, they received compensation covering legal costs of two appeals and an ex-gratia payment (payment given without the giver having a legal obligation) from the government, many years of their lives were still missed because of their conviction in the first place. The justice system could always use improvement with mistakes and principals being compromised and undermined in many cases.