project

In this project, we learnt about the principles of justice that uphold Australia’s legal system, such as the presumption of innocence an impartial judiciary, and the right to legal representation. I studied the case of Andrew Mallard and analyzed how these principles were both upheld and violated in the case. After writing an essay on the topic, we were required to incorporate feedback and edit the essay so that it was for online publication. This essay is the result of that editing process. It demonstrates my ability to take feedback, and refine a piece of written work to produce a professional result.

Introduction to the Case: Andrew mallard was unfairly indicted for the homicide of Pamela Lawerence. He served 12 years of his 20-year sentence until the genuine murderer was tested and indicted. For this situation, not every one of the standards of equity was maintained, for example, being innocent until you are deemed innocent.

Case Details: Andrew Mallard was captured for the homicide of Pamela Lawerence on the 23rd of May 1994. After a few dubious meetings led by police, Mallard was captured. Mallard was living in the city after being delivered from the psychological emergency clinic after a mental meltdown. Mallard got the consideration of the police after he was discovered professing to be a cop. This is the thing that most probable drove them to utilize Mallard as a substitute for the Lawerence murder as he was at that point under doubt.

Equal to the Law: While being met for the homicide of Pamela Lawerence, Mallard was on a psychological foundation from a past mental meltdown. Mallard was stripped and beaten for 8 hours before being controlled into admitting to the homicide. Mallard was met without the presence of staff or facilitators of the medical clinic permitting the police to lie and control Mallard. This subverts the primary standard of equity, Equal to the law.

Right to a fair trial: The second rule of equity, the right to a reasonable trial. This was not maintained by the same token. Investigators retained proof in the trial that would have demonstrated Mallard’s honesty and innocence. This is not a fair trial as for it to be fair both parties should and would be able to present all available information. This was an obviously targeted case as they interviewed over 130 people and mainly suspected Mallard without much plausible evidence. They had even interviewed the real murder; Simon Rochford; who was then found guilty after the release of Mallard in 2006 (which he then received compensation of roughly 3.25 million dollars) but ultimately ended it all the same year. During the trial, investigators tried to say that Mallard used a wrench to slaughter Ms. Lawernce but was unable to provide proof of this and utilized their control of Mallard as a point of evidence.

The right to Appeal: The third guideline was not maintained either, the option to offer. All through his long-term sentence, mallard and others made a few claims to the courts for another preliminary anyway was more than once denied. This demonstration totally underminds the law that would hypothetically permit an unfairly sentenced man; like Mallard and Buttons; to be liberated.

Independent and impartial Judiciary: The last standard of equity is of the fair-minded and autonomous legal executive. This standard while not really sabotaged was debilitated because of the absence of data and proof given to the jury and judge. This rule likewise identifies with the rule ‘the privilege to a reasonable preliminary’, in such assuming this guideline is subverted or debilitated, promptly so is preliminary.

Summary/Conclusion: Andrew Mallard was an improperly indicted man who went through 12 years in prison for a wrongdoing he didn’t perpetrate. The standards of equity were not mainly maintained; only the principle of an impartial and independent judiciary was upheld; and as such took into account the honest Andrew Mallard to be improperly bolted away.