For the most part, our judiciary systems tries to uphold justice as much as possible, however, in my chosen case of injustice, the Mickelbergs, these three brothers were beaten, tortured and corrupt police threw them in jail. They suffered due to the inability to access most principles of justice. These include the right to silence, innocent until proven guilty and equal treatment before the law. On the other hand, I will also discuss one principle that is upheld and that is impartial judge and jury.

Firstly, I will introduce my chosen case, which is the Mickelbergs case, three brothers that were accused by the police for the Perth Mint Swindle of 1982, where three individuals were spotted stealing 39 gold bars worth $653,000 at the time (around $5 million today) . The Mickelbergs were detained and corrupt police beat the Mickelbergs until they confessed to crimes they did not commit. The police then fabricated evidence and witness statements to further attempt to prove the Mickelbergs were guilty. The Mickelbergs then went to court and were sentenced to 16, 12 and 18 years each. They were finally released on their 8^th appeal in 1989-1991 when one of the policemen involved, Tony Lewandowski, came forward and confessed himself and other police to the judge and the Mickelbergs were let go. What implicated these brothers further previously happened in September 1982. The three brothers, their parents and another man, Brian Pozzi were charged over a matter relating to a manufactured gold nugget known as the “Yellow Rose of Texas”. Perth Businessman, Alan Bond had purchased the nugget for $350,000 in November 1980. It was later found to be worth less than $150,000 and Raymond Mickelberg and Brian Pozzi pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to fraud at their June 1984 trial.

Secondly, one of the 9 principles of justice that was not supported was the right to silence which is a right given to all accused of any crime. This was compromised in the Mickelbergs’ case, while they should have been allowed to have legal representation, they were beaten by corrupt police into confessing when they should have been allowed to stay silent. Right to silence is important when we are talking about justice, because if this is violated, the accused can be harassed and abused into saying the wrong thing while under pressure or making themselves look guilty.

Another principle not supported was the idea of equal treatment before the law. This principle overlaps and covers almost all other rights that an accused should have such as the right to silence, right to legal representation, right to an interpreter (if necessary), right to safety, not being called guilty before sentencing or otherwise. This was not supported in the Mickelbergs’ case as mentioned previously. They were beaten and police sent information to mainstream media calling the trio ‘criminals’ and they didnt have a lawyer to defend them. This principle is important, especially for a system attempting to be impartial. It means sentencing and punishments are based off the crime not the accused. It protects the human right of freedom in the light of innocence.

The final principle not supported in this case was innocent until proven guilty. This was compromised in the Mickelbergs’ case as the media was told by corrupt police that the brothers were guilty, so the jury were already biased before hearing this case. Furthermore the fabricated evidence that fed to both the judge and the jury did not treat the brothers as innocent before they were sentenced and proven guilty. This particular principle is incredibly important especially in cases of injustice as this case is because it gives the accused and their lawyer/s a chance to prove to the judge and jury that they are innocent or at least not guilty of all crimes they were accused of. The jury can make an educated decision on how to proceed.

Even with corrupt police and the media influencing results, even with all that, one principle was supported and that is impartial judge and jury. The judge and jury made appropriate sentencing based on the confessions they could see as well as the evidence they were shown. All of this was pointing towards the Mickelbergs being guilty. The problem was with the corrupt police, and how they obtained the evidence sneakily, dishonestly and forcefully. The judge and jury were impartial and they followed procedure accurately, they were just fed false evidence and maliciously acquired confessions. The fact that this principle of justice was supported in the case of the Mickelbergs is a good thing. Impartial judge and jury is one of the most important principles because they decide both whether or not the accused is sentenced at all and also the severity of punishment.

In this case, many principles of justice were violated, such as the right to silence, innocent until proven guilty and equal treatment before the law. The one singular principle supported in the case of the Mickelbergs, was impartial judge and jury, however, the evidence delivered to them was heavily tampered with and acquired under illegitimate circumstances. The Mickelbergs had a history of crime, however, this travesty of inhumane treatment and incarceration highlights the harsh, ill treatment that can occur when the principles of justice are grossly dismissed by those entrusted to uphold them.