summary of case
Andrew Mallard was accused of brutally murdering Pamela Lawrence in Perth, 24th May 1994. Pamela Lawrence was a jewelry store owner who was bludgeoned and found by her husband and rushed to hospital, Pamela died in hospital shortly after.
There was a man hunt as soon after, to find out who would kill a woman who was kind and had no known enemies. Initially there was 136 suspects. Andrew Mallard was one of the suspects accused of this crime. At the time he was being accused he was mentally unstable, living on the street and in the middle of a nervous breakdown. He was labeled as “rough” and “unstable”. It was no surprise he was on the suspect list in the first place, he was involved in a petty crimes like burglary as well as impersonating a police officer, but no violet crime. He was being treated at Graylands psychiatric hospital. While in the hospital he was interviewed by the police he wasn’t given the public advocate, legal aid he didn’t even have a mental health nurse with him.
In later interviews, he was asked how he would commit this crime in reality he was describing his projection of the crime scene. After this they arrested him for the murder of Pamela Lawrence. The entire case was based he confessions under duress .
There was no evidence against him at the crime scene no fingerprints or DNA, there was nothing forensic evidence. The piece of evidence that pushed this case over the top was the wrench he drew during an interview this knowledge was fed to him while the undercover cop was talking to him before he was arrested
He was then sentenced 30 years in jail on the 2 pieces of evidence, confession and the drawing of the alleged murder weapon He was in jail for 12 years before there was pressure from the public to look into this cold case. After a reporter looked into this case it came to attention that something wasn’t right. His family then acquired the services of a top Perth legal team with managed to overturn the original conviction based on suppressed evidence.
The new defense team looked deeper into the evidence. There were fingerprints that got traced to Simon Rochford who was sent to jail 7 weeks after Pamela’s murder for killing his girlfriend, who was then interviewed and confessed to the crime, as he was already in jail, and soon after commited suicide in his jail cell. Andrew Mallard was soon released and got 3.25 million dollars compensation for physical and mental health compensation, as well as the time he could have spent working and income lost.
Andrew Mallard’s case illustrates how a wrongful conviction can result from police misconduct missing evidence and judicial error.
We learn and demonstrate that the principles of justice were not upheld within Australia’s legal system, and summarize various aspects of the Mallard case and how various principles were compromised in his case.
Introduction
In this essay we will discuss the lack of justice in the Andrew Mallard case, we will discuss Australia’s legal system such as equality, reliable evidence, assess to reliable evidence and assess to the best legal representation. We will demonstrate through a series of events that occurred after the murder Pamela Lawrence in 1994 that the principles of justice in Australia were severely compiled through out and after the Andrew Mallard case.
Principles of justice
Nationhood and rights balanced by responsibilities. Australia’s legal system is based on common-law jurisdiction, the same principal used in the common law system of English law. It is enforced uniformly across all states within Australia. The principles are important to ensure an unbiased outcome is achieved within the principles of justice as outlined by the rule of law in Australia. This means that all people are treated equally without bias within the parameters of Australian law. For example, a person sent to jail for a crime they did not commit and was wrongly convicted due to bias within the rule of law. Evidence of withheld evidence and suppression of evidence that would prove innocence was withheld.
Being treated equally
The WA police assumed the motive was robbery even though nothing was missing from the store. The police were quick to action and began to investigate over 100 people that were in the vicinity including Andrew Mallard. Even though Mallard did not have a history of violence he had been involved in petty offenses Mallard was being treated for bipolar disorder at a mental institute when he was first interviewed by police. Mallard was questioned again at the police station, this interview was not recorded but the police alleged that Mallard confessed to the murder. They released him for a second time but was questioned again days later at the police station a portion of the interview was video taped for 20 minutes, but didn’t contain a confession he was released for a 3rd time. 4 weeks later Mallard was back in treatment at the hospital which is where he was arrested for the murder of Lawrence. With no eye witness no physical or forensic evidence Mallard was arrested on the allegation he confessed in the video taped interview in which he didn’t confess. The jury found him guilty based on this evidence, he was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. This represents a lack of equality before the law. Any person facing a court of law is entitled to be treated equally without bias and within the parameters of Australian law with out an eye witness no evidence and an allegation of confession, being treated for a mental illness at the time of his arrest. It is clear Mallard was not treated equally or without bias.
Right to legal representation
In Mallards first court case, it was established that he did not have legal representation that was experienced enough to represent him against the director of public prosecutions. Mallards family pleaded for better representation which was denied putting him in a vulnerable position. Which tricked him into a confession, Mallard was told he would be able to assist the police in solving the murder, by putting forward his own theories on how the murder may have been committed. Mallard also drew a picture of the shop of which the details were incorrect and the drawing of the alleged murder weapon by adding the details that have been given to him by the detectives. Mallard even passed 2 polygraph tests that scrutinized his involvement in the case the results were not admitted as evidence by the supreme court because polygraph results are not reviewed as reliable. All of this evidence would later, in future appeals be submitted as evidence by more experienced lawyers. This demonstrates the lack of sufficient legal representation that led to a conviction of a 30 year term.
reliable evidence
The defence against Mallard argued that he was told he would be able to assist the police putting version on how the murder would have been committed. Mallard was confused tired and he began to put forward theories based on the information he saw in the media and from the detective that were questioning him. Mallard also drew a picture of the shop and the murder weapon adding pieces that were given to him by the detectives. The results were not admitted as evidence because the conviction of Mallard was primarily due to his confession and the 20 minutes of video. Of particular concern is that items of evidentiary material consistent with innocence were suppressed or removed from evidence suppled to the defence. For example, the prosecution with held evidence to witness statements to scientific evidence that put doubt to the murder weapon. This demonstrates that access to reliable evidence was withheld from both the defence team, judge and jury.
Available evidence
Upon the high courts overturning Mallards conviction, the judges made note that the prosecution had not adhered to the principle of equality or arms, of particular concern were items of material evidence consistent with innocence making it difficult for the prosecutor’s presumption of guilt and were subsequently removed from material supplied to the defense. For example, evidence regarding witness statements and scientific testing were withheld to the defense. This illustrates that access to all evidence was not made available to the Mallards defense team.
