The principles of justice are made to make sure that every Australian citizen is equal and that their rights are protected in the legal system. The Andrew Mallard case was a very unfair case where these principles of justice were not upheld. Andrew Mallard was accused and convicted of the murder of Pamela Lawrence in her Mosman Park jewelry shop in 1995. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, and had to serve 12 years before his convictions got quashed due to him being found not guilty. The principles of justice that were not upheld in this and that I’m going to talk about later is High quality evidence, all individuals have the right to a reasonable appeal, and that all individuals are equal before the law. All of the principles of justice including these 3 were mostly heavily compromised in this case.
High quality evidence means that all evidence presented in court must be true, and not made up, and it must come from a legitimate source and not have been tampered with, and it should come naturally not from forms of bribery and threatening. All evidence should be said in court, and none should be hidden from the court officials. This principal of justice is important because evidence is used to prove an arguments trueness, and if evidence isn’t there or is not high quality enough to support peoples statements in court they can say anything, making the outcome of the case biased. In this case, this principle of justice was certainly not upheld due to a lot of reasons. This was heavily compromised in this case because police and lawyers kept evidence from the court. A piece of vital evidence they kept was that pathologists had done a test on a pig’s head which had convinced the pathologist who did the test that Mallards supposed weapon, a wrench, could not have inflicted the injuries Pamela Lawrence had. Police also used evidence that was not gained legitimately. They used a set of police notes from an interview as evidence, which stated that he supposedly ‘confessed to the crime’ , but, these notes were not signed by Mallard. Because of Mallards psychiatric disorder, he tended to make up stories and strange admissions that were then later withdrawn. During an 11 hour video recorded interview, a short clip was shown from the last 20 minutes of the interview. In the clip he was speculating as to how the murderer might have killed Pamela, attempting to describe what the attacker had done at the crime scene, and saying Mrs. Lawrence had been hit with a wrench. He spoke this in the third person, making it clear talking about someone else, likely someone made up because of his mental health issue. He then was bribed, stripped naked and repeatedly beaten until he sketched police an outline of this supposed wrench. Police then used his statement from the interview as a confession, even though he was clearly talking about some made up person in his head, and his drawing of the wrench as additional evidence, not taking any consideration that all of this was likely not reliable due to his unpredictable mental state, especially considering he spent 11 hours straight being interviewed and questioned. These examples demonstrate that the principle of High quality evidence was heavily compromised in the Mallard case. One way of maintaining high quality evidence is for the police to not keep any evidence from court, not to bribe and threaten the accused to confess to things, and to consider if certain factors can make evidence not reliable.
All individuals have the right to a reasonable appeal means that all citizens in court have the right to apply to a higher court to determine whether a decision of a lower court was correct, known as an appeal. This principal of justice is important because if the accused thinks that the court trial’s outcomes were unfair and untrue, they can appeal and hopefully get the result that is true. In this case, this principle of justice was mostly not upheld, but in some circumstances was. It was compromised because Mallard’s request to appeal was declined several times. His appeal to the WA court of appeal, and his special leave application to the high court were both dismissed with no reasoning as to why. Later a clemency petition to the Court of Appeal from the attorney general also was rejected. The DPP (Director of public prosecutions) then opposed the clemency appeal, even though by then the prosecutors knew evidence had been withheld at the trial. Then eventually, Mallard’s legal team was granted special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia and on 6–7 September 2005, Mallard’s appeal was heard in the High Court and the judges agreed unanimously that his conviction be quashed and a retrial be ordered, and he was finally set free after 12 years of jail time for something he didn’t do. These examples demonstrate that the right to a reasonable appeal was mostly not upheld, but eventually was when he was granted to appeal to the high court. But even though he did get the chance to appeal, it certainly was not reasonable that he had to wait 12 years and several declined attempts until he got the chance to prove his innocence.
All individuals are equal before the law means that everyone is equal under the law, and everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. This means that everyone, regardless of race, gender, colour, ethnicity, religion, disability, or other traits, must be treated equally under the law, without privilege, discrimination, or bias. This principle of justice is important because everyone has the right to be treated equally in court, and they have the right to a fair trial where the results are based off the evidence and not personal details and traits. In the Mallard case, this principle of justice was certainly not upheld, for a variety of reasons. It was compromised because Mallard had a few previous criminal convictions, such as petty theft and marijuana usage. These crimes are extremely unrelated to the murder of Pamela Lawrence and should not be considered as evidence or reasons to convict Mallard. Mallard had been living on the streets after suffering a nervous breakdown due to his bipolar disorder. Also, he came to the attention of police when he was placed in Grayland’s Psychiatric Hospital after attempting a burglary where he impersonated a police officer, the day before Pamela was murdered. They also would have discriminated him and not thought of him as equal due to is mental health issue, which could have made people perceive him as crazy and insane, making people think he is capable of murdering someone. This evidence shows that Mallard was certainly not equal before the law, and this principle of justice was not upheld in this case.
Overall, the principles of justice were 95% of the time heavily compromised. The principles of justice are important and should be used in all cases seen in court because they are made to make sure that every Australian citizen is equal and that their rights are protected in the legal system. This case had a huge impact on Mallard himself, his family, friends, the Australian legal system, and Australia overall. Mallard spent 12 years of his life in jail after being accused of murdering Pamela Lawrence, even though he was completely innocent. He was finally released from jail after his unfair battle with Australias legal system in 2005, after his convictions were quashed by the high court of Australia, and he received $3.25 million in compensation. He sadly passed away recently after being hit by in a car while in America visiting his fiancée. This case changed the way people view Australias police and justice system, and made loads of Australians unsure about the reliability of the legal system.
