HASS CIVICS AND CITIZENSHIP ESSAY

We were supposed to write the best essay we could in 55 mins. We have now been given the chance to change it and improve it with more time given.

The injustice done to Andrew Mallard

Andrew Mallard was behind bars for 12 years until his wrongful conviction was overturned by the high court. He was convicted of murdering Pamela Lawrence on the premises of her jewellery store (Flora Metallica) on the 23rd of May 1994. She died on the way to the hospital with multiple hits and head trauma. This case includes many actions and doings that were contrary to justice. This essay will explore how justice was compromised to quite an extent in Andrew Mallard’s case. We can see this through the principles of justice. The principles of justice are the rules that we follow and believe in to ensure that everyone gets a fair trial. The principles of justice were supported and compromised through the principle of reliable evidence, the presumption of innocence, legal representation, and un-disclosed evidence.

The principle of reliable evidence was compromised through the interview that was done, which is told to be where Andrew seemed to have confessed. Reliable evidence means that all the evidence in the court is either proven forensically or by video.  Andrew Mallard was suffering from many mental illnesses at the time. The mental illnesses that he was suffering included depression and bipolar disease which can cause unprecedented mood swings and cause one’s mind to cloud. The prosecution used the interview as the main point for their argument, yet at the time of the confession, Andrew was suffering from a mental episode. He was forced to sit in an interview for 13 hours. Mallard was experiencing a mood swing; he was tired and the police were firing a barrage of serious questions at him in a Police station! Because of his mental state, he thought that he was helping the police with an important investigation and was just throwing lies and saying things that the police pretty much told him while the course of the interview. Andrew Mallard was in no shape to speak the truth and had absolutely no idea what he was saying. None of the evidence should have been known as reliable and it should not have been used to prosecute himself. Most of the interview was not even by video meaning all the evidence from the confession was based on police notes. The police could have misunderstood Mallard and wrote something different to what he was saying. This is unreliable evidence meaning that it should not have been considered in court whether Mallard was guilty or not. Later in the case, it was found that many of the witness statements had been retaken until they helped the prosecution’s argument. The police had a meeting with the witnesses before interviewing them and told them things that they had to say. This meant that the witness statements that were very much relied on in the case were tampered affecting the judgement. This shows that justice was compromised meaning that justice was not served. Corruption has no place in our justice system, and it should never have blinded some of our top investigators. The right to freedom of speech instructs that, no one should have been forced to say something. The police should have understood the kind of person they were dealing with and therefore changed the way he was interviewed. They need to video the interview and make it as easy as possible for Mallard to speak the truth. This compromise meant that truthful and proven evidence was not provided in court preventing justice from being upheld. This was a horrendous misdoing affecting justice hopefully never occurring again.

The Presumption of innocence is one of the most important Principles of Justice in Australia’s legal system. It is made up of 2 parts. Standard of innocence and burden of proof. Standard of Innocence means that the accused is innocent till proven guilty. We can see how this was supported through the judge and jury treating him as an innocent person but when it came to how the police treated him, this principle was very much compromised. They treated him in the interviews as if he were the murderer, demanding everything he knew as if he knew everything. He was treated as the murderer, which should not have occurred because of the standard of innocence. He was still innocent as the case had not even started; therefore, he should not have been treated as a murderer in his interviews. The burden of proof is the evidence needed to prove the accused guilty.  This means beyond a reasonable doubt. We can see that is supported because a confession is a strong argument but there was no forensic evidence linking Mallard to the murder. The fingerprints, the blood, the intention, none of them showed Andrew to be guilty. Even all the confessions he pointed out in his so-called confession, did not match anything like what science had to prove. We can see that this principle was both compromised and supported. Andrew Mallard should have been treated properly and as a person that was innocent, not guilty. There should have been more than the confession because no forensic evidence linked Mallard to the murder, this does not satisfy the burden of proof needed to convict someone. Not enough proof was considered in the court leading to a wrongful conviction.

Legal representation is available to everyone in Australia, and it is a basic right here. Legal representation means that everyone has the right to a lawyer to represent them in court, this was both supported and compromised in the case. This was substantially supported because of his financial situation; he was given someone to represent him in court. The only problem was the lawyer given to him was very inexperienced and was only sitting his 2nd murder trial. He did not have the ability yet for a case with such a high profile. He was not ready to be in the service of a client with many disabilities. He asked a court for a lawyer with more experience for his client but was denied. Because of his financial situation, he unable to pay for a good lawyer and put him at a disadvantage. Another action that gravely compromised the principle of legal representation was that he had no guardian or legal representation during a 13-hour interview. He was not explained by the police his right to a guardian and a lawyer during an interview. Andrew Mallard should have been given a better lawyer that had more experience so that it did not disadvantage him against the high experience lawyers that the prosecution had. Mallard needed to know about the right to representation before the interview and should have been given the choice and time to get a guardian or lawyer to represent him while the interview. This shows how legal representation was both strongly supported, but also gravely compromised in this case. Money should never affect justice being served and giving someone less chance to be innocent.

The principle of undisclosed evidence is compromised and affected the verdict of Mallard’s guilt. All the evidence relating to the case must be disclosed to the defence.  We can see this through the many forensic tests that were done, but not told to the defence because it would prove Mr Mallard not guilty. For example, the police told the chemist to take out the saltwater tests on Andrew’s clothes, which showed no salt. This would have helped the defence to prove Mallard not guilty. It showed that Mallard saying that the murderer washed their clothes in salt was untrue and Mr Mallard was just making things up on the spot. The results of the tests done on a pig’s skull were not given to the defence. These tests showed the weapon was not a wrench which would show that the weapon that Mr Mallard described was not the weapon that causes the marks on the deceased head. This evidence would have helped the defence prove Andrew not guilty. All the investigations and forensic tests were not available to the defence meaning that crucial evidence proving Mallard not guilty was left out on purpose so that the evidence was not considered in the decision and weakened the defence’s case. This does not follow the principle of reliable evidence and affected the verdict. This should not have occurred, and all the evidence should have been disclosed to the defence so that all the evidence on the crime scene is considered in the case. Through these incidents we able to understand how the principle of undisclosed evidence was compromised. Crucial evidence was hidden from the defence that would have easily proven Mallard not guilty showing how justice was compromised.

We can see throughout this case, many miscarriages of justice occurred. This essay shows how the principles of justice were compromised to quite an extent in the Mallard case, through the principles of reliable evidence, the presumption of innocence, legal representation, and un-disclosed evidence. We call Australia home, but how can we ever feel safe and depend on our legal system if cases like this happen. We must make sure that we change and learn from our mistakes and do everything we can so that no one else must go through this horror ever again.

Thank you for reading!