Acquittals and Presumption of Innocence

This is with reference to a Parliamentary Question on 25th August 2008.

Recently, there has been debate on this matter about the Government's stand on this issue, coming on the heels of controversial comments by the Attorney General that "an acquittal does not mean that an accused is innocent" and that an acquitted person could be "guilty in fact".

The Law Minister, Mr K Shanmugan, had this to say:

"In our Criminal Justice System:

(1)        When a Court finds an accused guilty of an offence with which he has been charged, it means that the judge is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused has committed the offence charged.  In other words, the judge is convinced that the accused is guilty.  

(2)        On the other hand, when the Court acquits an accused, it simply means that the Court is not convinced that he is guilty. This is because the Court does not have to go into the question of whether the accused is in fact innocent.  An acquittal (often) simply means that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.  In such a situation (when there is any reasonable doubt), the Court has a duty to acquit the accused, regardless of whether the Court thinks the accused may have in fact committed the offence.  It is therefore possible for a person who has committed the offence to walk away free.  We accept that as an unavoidable consequence of our trial system, as procedural justice is important."

While I do agree with this statement (Some of the acquited will invariably be actually guilty), the recent controversy raises the interesting point that such acquittals will unavoidably cast aspersions on the innocent. 

For instance, Mr Shanmugan cites jurisprudence from the United Kingdom:

""Interesting questions have been debated before your Lordships as to the true effect of an acquittal. An accused is entitled to be acquitted unless the evidence satisfies the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty.  A verdict of not guilty may mean that the jury is certain that the accused is innocent, or it may mean that, although the evidence arouses considerable suspicion, it is insufficient to convince the jury of the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The verdict of not guilty is consistent with the jury having taken either view. The only effect of an acquittal, in law, is that the accused can never again be brought before a criminal court and tried for the same offence. So far as the Crown is concerned, the accused is deemed, in law, to be innocent." 

Lord Salmon, Director of Public Prosecutions v Shannon [1975] AC 717

Thus, it is clearly stated here that both the innocent and those whose guilt cannot be proven are lumped in the same category. We can conclude that such a finding means that the accused cannot proven to be guilty, but neither can he be proven to be innocent. I feel that such a grey area should be avoided, as the emotional,mental and financial turmoil of a long court case to both the accused and his/her family cannot be underemphasized. It is only proper for the prosecution to rest their case after such court cases, as there is no point in leaving the defendant in a prolonged state of agony/uncertainty after going throughthe legal maelstrom of complicated court proceedings, other than to constantly remind the defendant of the case over and over again.

To further illustrate this contradiction between the stand taken by the state and its actions, I highlight the statement made by the Law Minister that:

"The presumption of innocence is an important and fundamental principle, and is one of the foundations of our Criminal Justice System.The Government is absolutely committed to upholding the presumption of innocence, as a core principle in our commitment to the Rule of Law.  There is no intention to question or qualify that principle in any way."

Compare this statement to a comment made by the Minister several paragraphs later, which references an article in the Massachusetts Bar Association, which notes that "The word innocent should not be used promiscuously."

" It is possible that some confusion had arisen because this is a technical area and there is tendency in common parlance to equate a finding of "not guilty" in court with actual innocence.  A recent article by the Massachusetts Bar Association points out this common mistake and calls for more precise terminology. A finding of a "not guilty" is not to be equated with actual innocence."

Thus, on one hand, the state argues that it wholeheartedly supports this presumption of innocence, ie the accused is innocent till proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it is to be noted that defendants whose guilt cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt cannot be truly vindicated either, nor could they be declared innocent.I feel that these two statements are incompatible. While the government's stand does have logical basis, the claim that those declared "not guilty" are not always innocent, invariably casts aspersions on the character and past of people in this category, which does a great injustice to those whom are factually innocent, having had had to suffer the triple whammy of heavy financial burdens due to legal fees, emotional trauma from being wronged, and having their reputation tarnished for a crime he did not commit.

Also, I strongly feel that if the state, which ensures the proper enforcement of laws as part of its broad mandate to rule, as well as in control of the Police and the other security apparatus of the state, fails to prove the guilt of a single man beyond reasonable doubt despite its broad powers and overarching influence, the state should recognize that there is a high likelihood that the individual is innocent and thus acquit with this underlying assumption. There is no benefit to the state and the individual in leaving the defendant stranded in a legal grey area.

For those in this situation, I feel that if compensation cannot be given by the government (which is the main thrust of the AG's statement), the government should at least recognize the likely innocence rather than guilt of those acquited.

It is notable that the Massachussetts Bar Association argues that in several cases, the accused is actually guilty, but through various faults in the legal process (eg evidence was ruled inadmissable due to various issues), the accused is acquitted. While I do admit this possibility, I believe that such cases are firmly in the minority. In the vast majority of acquited individuals, the individuals are innocent.

Also, even if this is not the case, I argue that it is better that a few factually guilty parties be declared innocent, than the whole let be declared implicitly guilty. This is as the factually guilty have already paid a price, however small relative to the magnitude, through legal fees and mental trauma, whereas the innocent would be severely wronged to be forever branded by the crimes they did not commit.

The fact that this is not an AQ however gives me the liberty to declare that this stance is probably assuming that you, like me, strongly believe that the fair administration of justice should be more focused on avoiding the maligning of the innocent (based on the beneficial intention of "First, do no harm"). If you however stauchly believe that the judicial system should be focused on the prosecution of the guilty at all costs,  do feel free to disagree with my humble opinion.