Networked Knowledge - Media Report

[This edited version of the report has been prepared by Dr Robert N Moles]

Mallard v The Queen 2005
Andrew Mallard homepage
Article: Australian law on miscarriages of justice
Article: UK law on miscarriages of justice
Article: USA law on miscarriages of justice

On 8 August 2007 Sean Cowan of The West Australian reported “Senior cop denies doctoring statement”

Assistant Commissioner Dave Caporn has been forced to deny doctoring witness statements to further implicate Andrew Mallard in the murder of Mosman Park jeweller Pamela Lawrence. Mr Mallard, now 44, served 12 years in jail for the murder but was released last year after the High Court quashed his conviction. A subsequent police review of the case identified Simon Rochford, who had been convicted of another murder, as the prime suspect.

The Corruption and Crime Commission is investigating the conduct of the police officers who arrested Mr Mallard and the case prosecutors. Today, CCC lawyer Jeremy Gormly asked Mr Caporn about statements made by a Mr Mouchemore about a man he saw in the area of Mrs Lawrence’s shop Flora Metallica on the day of the murder.

The original statement, taken in May, described the man as wearing “black, pointy winklepicker boots”.  But a subsequent statement from the same witness simply had him wearing black boots. Mr Mallard did not own any pointy boots. Mr Gormly asked Mr Caporn whether he and Assistant Commissioner Shervill had changed the statement second statement to make it consistent with Mr Mallard. He denied having changed the statement.

On Tuesday, Mr Gormly accused Mr Caporn of badgering Mr Mallard into confessing to the murder in an interview conducted just hours after Mr Mallard was released from Graylands Psychiatric Hospital. Police notes of that interview suggest Mr Mallard talked about Mrs Lawrence’s murder in the third person and admitted some knowledge of the circumstances of her death.
Mr Gormly: I suggest to you that what you did was to badger Mr Mallard over a prolonged period, despite numerous denials, until you got a confession. That’s the question.
Mr Caporn: No, I did not. And I never got a confession in that interview . . . I got some admissions.
Mr Gormly: I want to suggest to you that given what you knew about Mr Mallard’s recent health history, it was quite wrong to interview him in that way without having obtained some assessment from a psychiatrist that to do so was appropriate?
Mr Caporn: I don’t agree.
Mr Gormly: Finally, I want to suggest to you that from what you knew of Mr Mallard’s recent history, that any admissions that you obtained from him would always have been suspect . . . of unreliability.
Mr Caporn: No. But I agree when you look back at everything I know now there might be something (in) what you’re saying. But I didn’t have that in my mind on 10 June (1994).
Mr Caporn agreed a psychiatric nurse may have terminated the interview, but said he had not waited until Mr Mallard was discharged from Graylands just to avoid that problem.

Source: 8 August 2007 Sean Cowan “Senior cop denies doctoring statement”

Top of Page