In this project, we learnt about the principles of justice that uphold Australia’s legal system, such as the presumption of innocence, right to silence, and equal treatment before the law. 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.

Our legal system aims to uphold justice in and outside of court. But not every case is just, and many people are wrongly convicted. In Andrew Mallard’s case the principles of justice: “innocent until proven guilty”, “right to silence and “equal treatment before the law” were not upheld. This case shows flaws within the system to what extent justice was upheld.

In 1994, Pamela Lawrence was bludgeoned in her jewelry store. She died hours later in hospital. Andrew Mallard was one of the initial 136 suspects. At the time he was living on the streets and had a history of mental illness. Police decided to drop all other suspects and focus on him due to his situation. Throughout the investigation justice was not upheld, and Mr. Mallard was sentenced to 20 years in jail.

The principle of justice, “innocent until proven guilty means that a suspect should be treated as innocent during the investigation and court process until the judge/jury decides they are guilty based off evidence provided in court. This principle is important as if the suspect is assumed to be guilty no other suspects are considered, and the true criminal can get away. In Andrew Mallard’s case police assumed he was guilty because of his situation so decided to make him look guilty. They did this by changing witness statements hiding evidence and lying about his confession. He had recently been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was a heavy cannabis user at the time he “confessed”. He was a vulnerable person and unknown to him was at a great risk. The confession he gave should have been treated as a false confession, but the police decided not to as they believed he was guilty.

Right to silence is an integral part of our legal system. It means that you have the right to remain silent during the investigation and court trial and the outcome will not be affected by it. Having the right to remain silent is important in that it shows only evidence should be used to come to a decision on whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. In Mr. Mallard’s case his right to remain silent was not respected. Police forced him to talk in interviews, pulling him out of the mental hospital he was in. They illegally placed an undercover cop on him, who took advantage of Andrew’s health and coerced him into thinking he was the killer. And he went through hours of interviews and interrogations from the detectives who put ideas into his head that he was the killer. All of this and how he was not allowed legal representation to help him, show that his right to silence was completely disregarded.

Equal treatment before the law should mean that there is no discrimination against your race, gender, metal capacity etc. It is your right to safety during the investigation and the trial and your right to legal representation. You should have complete access to police evidence and the right to privacy. And above all your health and safety come before the law. But in Andrew’s case none of this was true. In the beginning of the investigation, he was discriminated against for how he lived and his mental wellbeing. When being interviewed after getting pulled out of hospital he did not have any legal representation or even a nurse with him. And during the course of his interrogations, he was stripped bare by detectives and made to talk. This shows how he should have the right to a sense of safety, and yet justice was not upheld.

However, the principle of justice “right to appeal” was to a certain extent upheld. Andrew protested his innocence the entire. He served 11 years in jail before in 2005 the High Court quashed the conviction and then 2006 the case was dropped. But the process he went through to get there was difficult. Him and his family endured setback after setback including an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1996 and a failed high Court bid the year after. A breakthrough finally came in 2002 when a new team of volunteers — led by Mr Quigley, now WA’s Attorney-General, Mr McCusker and Egan — served a petition to then attorney-general Jim McGinty, asking that the case be again referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The petition contained new forensic evidence which was not disclosed in the trial — testing done by a forensic pathologist which found it was not possible for Mrs Lawrence’s wounds to have been caused by the wrench Mr Mallard described as the murder weapon. Mr McGinty agreed, but the Court of Criminal Appeal rejected the bid. The group persevered and lodged an appeal to the High Court in 2003. Almost two years later, Mr Mallard’s conviction was quashed. Three months later, on February 20, 2006, Mr Mallard, 43, finally walked free from prison after 12 years.

Though justice was not upheld throughout the case, our legal system eventually corrected the mistake. To ensure that justice is upheld to a better extent in other cases appeals should not be denied and those appealing (the appellant) should have access to all the evidence from their case. Overall justice prevailed but not without hardship on Andrew Mallard and it took 12 years for some extent of justice to be shown.

• By Ruthie