Andrew Mallard - Australia

January 04

Update

Andrew was finally released from prison on 20 February 2006, after the prosecution services in Western Australia decided not to try him again.

---

Andrew Mallard, a 41 year old British citizen, has been in prison in Australia on a murder conviction for more than 8 years. He was found guilty on disputed unsigned confessions and a 20 minute taped interview.

The victim, Pamela Lawrence, was killed at her jewellery shop in Perth on 23 May 1994. She had been beaten around the head with a blunt instrument, causing multiple fractures of the skull. The motive for the crime was assumed to have been robbery, but no jewellery had been stolen and there was no cash missing from the till. According to Mr Lawrence, who found his wife’s body, only her wallet was missing from her handbag. The police claimed that Andrew confessed to murdering Mrs Lawrence with a 10 inch long spanner and Mr Lawrence gave evidence that he thought that such a spanner might have been missing from the work shed behind the shop.

At the time of the murder, Andrew was being treated at Graylands psychiatric hospital for bipolar disorder. It was at Graylands that Andrew was first interviewed by the police. He told them that a taxi had dropped him several blocks from the jewellery shop at around the time of the murder. A witness had provided a description of a man seen in the shop on the evening of the murder, at around the time that Mrs Lawrence was killed. This description was very different to Andrew’s appearance and the witness did not identify Andrew as the man she had seen.

Andrew was questioned again at a police station for eight or nine hours. The interview was not videotaped but one of the officers took notes. The police alleged that Andrew confessed to the murder during that interview, yet he was released after it. He was taken in again for questioning a few days later. During these interviews, Andrew asserts he was bullied, assaulted and forced to strip naked. He consistently refused to sign records of the interviews as they did not reflect what he had said. Those interviews were admitted as evidence for the prosecution. Andrew was finally arrested four weeks later and charged with murder.

Andrew has said that during the interviews, police officers suggested that he might be able to help them solve the murder by putting forward his own theories of how it was been committed. This is how his ‘confession statement’ came about.

When asked what the murdered would have used, Andrew suggested a spanner. However expert tests commissioned by the police concluded that it could not have been a spanner. This report was withheld from the defence and jury.

There is no forensic evidence linking Andrew to the murder. A forensic pathologist gave evidence that the murderer would have had a lot of Mrs Lawrence's blood on his arms and hands and clothing, such was the savagery of the attack. Andrew was asked in the 'confession interview' what the murderer would have done to get rid of the blood. He answered that he would have gone to wash himself and his clothes in the salt-water river. No salt was found on his clothes or shoes; this report was kept from the defence.

Despite the lack of evidence, Andrew was convicted of murder on 15 November 1995 and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. His first appeal failed. A second appeal, based on information not disclosed to the defence, was dismissed on 3 December 2003 by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, despite the justices admitting that information was withheld from the defence. The Judges in Andrew’s second appeal were incidentally colleagues of the former DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions, now a Supreme Court judge) to who reports that were kept from the defence, were personally addressed and sent before the trial. The former DPP was also counsel for the Crown at Andrew's first appeal.

While imprisoned, Andrew passed two polygraph tests, but the results were not accepted as evidence by the Supreme Court.

In October 2004 The Australian High Court granted special leave to appeal and in November 2005 the conviction against Andrew was quashed by the Australian High Court, and a retrial ordered.

Fair Trial Issues

1. Although the Supreme Court acknowledged that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence, they did not conclude that this had resulted in an unfair trial. Instead, they stated that a jury might return a different verdict taking the additional evidence into account. The judges never questioned why the prosecution withheld evidence.
2. FTA believes that the charge of murder against Andrew was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and a re trial would have been the only way to fully consider the many inconsistencies and fresh evidence.