Academic literature on the topic 'The presumption of innocence'

Despite its inclusion in most, if not all, criminal justice systems, there is no general consensus as to what constitutes the presumption of innocence. This study answers the question: What is the presumption of innocence? The study contributes to knowledge by providing a comprehensive definition of the presumption of innocence from both a theoretical and practical perspective. The substantive chapters are thematic. Chapter two examines how the presumption of innocence fits within the existing legal framework. Chapters three and four discuss the two aspects of the presumption of innocence. The procedural aspect is a legal presumption that is applicable at trial, while the non-procedural aspect extends the presumption of innocence outside of trial to protect non-convicted individuals from being treated as if they have been convicted. Chapter five argues that everyone can benefit from the presumption of innocence, but the right only attaches once someone is 'charged'. Chapter six examines the duty to uphold the presumption of innocence concluding that the strongest duty falls to the fact-finder but the majority of the burden falls to public authorities. Finally, the seventh chapter attempts to reconcile the presumption of innocence with pre-determination detention. The thesis concludes that the presumption of innocence is a human right with two aspects. These aspects keep innocent people from being treated as if they have been convicted of a crime. While the procedural aspect is operative at trial, the nonprocedural aspect extends the presumption of innocence beyond trial. The outcome of the particular criminal case determines when the right to the presumption of innocence ends. Finally, the presumption of innocence may be reconciled with predetermination detention only if the reason justifying the detention is not based within the criminal process.

5203 L $$aSince the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998, English courts have been called upon to decide whether 'reverse burdens', that is burdens of proof on a defendant in a criminal trial, are compatible with the right to be presumed innocent protected by Article (2) of the ECHR. Following the lead of the Strasbourg Court, the English courts have leld that the right to be presumed innocent may be subject to proportionate limitations. Accordingly, the doctrine of proportionality, comprising the notion of 'balance' between individual rights and the community interest, has become the touchstone of compliance with Article 6(2). is thesis seeks to move discussion of Article 6(2) beyond the anguage of proportionality and to place the focus on the values underlying the presumption of innocence.

PONTIFÍCIA UNIVERSIDADE CATÓLICA DO RIO DE JANEIRO<br>O garantismo penal busca a interpretação do Direito Penal e Processual Penal em consonância com a Constituição, assegurando a todos os cidadãos, inclusive aqueles que respondem a processos, os direitos e garantias individuais, limitando o poder estatal. O direito penal deve ser fulcrado em princípios como legalidade estrita (devendo ser feita a análise da tipicidade de forma conglobante), materialidade e lesividade dos delitos, responsabilidade pessoal, contraditório, a presunção de inocência dentre outros, não podendo intervir de forma violenta contra o acusado, sob pena de estar contribuindo para o aumento da violência. Prisão não é solução contra crimes. Deve-se investir mais em políticas públicas efetivas. A liberdade é a regra. Prisão, exceção. Deve o magistrado, quando a prisão não for adequada e necessária, aplicar outras cautelares. As prisões cautelares devem servir ao processo, observando-se as regras processuais e princípios constitucionais. Na garantia da ordem pública, deve-se demonstrar o perigo na liberdade de forma concreta. As decisões do Tribunal de Justiça de Minas devem estar em consonância com as decisões garantistas do Supremo Tribunal Federal.<br>The Penal Guaranteeism persuits the Criminal Law and Procedures interpretation in line with the Constitution, assuring all the citizens, including the ones whom respond to proceedings, the rights and individual guarantee, limiting the State power. The criminal law must be established to principles such as strict legality, (must be made the analysis of the typical features in an encompass way), materiality and how the offences prejudice, personal responsibility, contradictory, the presumption of innocence among others, do not taking part in a violent way against the accused, under penalty of being contributing to the violence increase. Arrest is not the solution against crimes. It must be more invested in effective public policies. Freedom is the rule. Arrest, an exception. The magistrate must apply interim measures when the arrest is not suitable or necessary. The interim measures must serve the proceeding, taking into account the procedural rules and the constitutional principles. In the public order assurance statement, it must be shown the danger in freedom in a concrete way. Court of Justice of the Estate of Minas Gerais decisions must be in line with the decisions from the garantists of the Supreme Court.

Magister Legum - LLM<br>In South Africa, as in most jurisdictions, the presumption of innocence is a guaranteed constitutional right. The rationale of the presumption lies in the protection which it offers, since a person charged with a criminal offence stands to lose dearly in personal liberty, in social life and psychological well-being. The presumption is, therefore, a pivotal element of a culture of democracy and human rights. This study is prompted by the realisation that the presumption of innocence, which ought to constitute one of the most fundamental rights in any criminal justice system, is being eroded steadily in South Africa. In this regard, a significant area of concern is the current bail laws which, in my estimation, make a big dent into the right to be presumed innocent. The bail laws are part of government’s policies directed at fighting crime. However, the pre-occupation with crime control measures threatens to reverse the hard-won rights of the accused and threatens to undermine individual liberty. Also, these measures are incompatible with the constitutional commitment to a culture of human rights.

The South African criminal justice process is such that there is an inevitable lapse of time between the arrest of the offender and his or her subsequent trial. The pre-trial incarceration presents a special problem. Between the arrest of the accused and release, the accused is being deprived of his or her liberty in circumstances where no court of law has pronounced him or her guilty. The right to bail is well entrenched in South African criminal justice system both in the Constitution Act and Criminal Procedure Act. Bail is always in the form of contract between the State and the accused, even though at times it may be opposed by the State. In the past the legal position based on the case law was that the presumption of innocence in bail proceedings operated in favour of the applicant even where it was said that there was a strong prima facie case against him or her. This position has slightly changed in that the courts in bail applications are not concerned with guilt, but that of possible guilt only to the extent that it may bear on where the interests of justice lie in regard to bail. The onus of proof in bail applications, other than Schedule 5 and 6 offences is borne by the State. Where Schedule 5 or 6 is applicable the onus is on the applicant. There are different requirements between schedule 5 and 6 that must be met by the applicant before release on bail is granted. In Schedule 5 offences the bail applicant must satisfy the court that the interests of justice permit his or her release. In determining whether the interests of justice permit the release of a particular applicant on bail, the courts are guided by the provisions of section 60(4) to (9) inclusive of section (11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In such determination the courts must also take into account of section 60(60)(a) to (g) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In Schedule 6 offences there are two requirements namely: the exceptional circumstances and the interests of justice. The term “exceptional circumstances” does not have a closed definition. Both requirements must be established by means of written or oral evidence to the satisfaction of the court before bail may be granted. As pointed out above, the State may still oppose the release on bail of the applicant. It is now accepted in bail applications that ordinary circumstances may in particular context be blended with exceptional or unusual elements. In such cases the court is expected to apply its independent evaluation of evidence in order to determine whether the exceptional circumstances in the interests of justice permit the release on bail. Similarly to the South African bail jurisprudence the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognises a right of the arrested person to apply for the interim release. It also recognises the need to establish exceptional circumstances for such release. The South African bail jurisprudence recognises the right to bail, and places reasonable and procedural limitations founded on the constitutional values and interests of justice. There are still practical challenges that need to be addressed as a results of the stringent requirements in section 60(11)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act that relate to Schedule 5 and 6. It is therefore recommended that there is a need for the following: 1. Legislative intervention that will regulate and limit the time spent on investigations where bail has been refused. 2. Legislative intervention that will provide for an automatic review procedures in Schedule 5 or 6 offences where bail is refused on grounds that the interests of justice do not permit the release of the applicant on bail or for failure to prove exceptional circumstances. It is submitted that this may assist in reducing refusals of bail based on mistaken understanding of the law or facts or irregularities that may be prejudicial to the applicant or the administration of justice; or 3. Legislative intervention that will make it mandatory for a court that refuses to grant bail to reconsider its decision after a certain period in future provided that the trial has not been commenced with, in order to determine whether further incarceration is necessary or proportionate to the offence. It is submitted that this may assist the court to enquire into unreasonable delays on investigations or changed circumstances of the applicant in order to enable the court to reconsider its previous decision if necessary. This may further assist in offences where it is foreseeable that the trial court is likely to pass a partly or wholly suspended sentence in case of conviction. For example some cases fall within the scope of Schedule 5 by virtue of a previous conviction on Schedule 1 or release on bail on a Schedule 1 offence. The above recommendations may directly or indirectly contribute in balancing the scales of justice during the bail proceedings and its aftermath. These may contribute to the reduction of high numbers of the in custody awaiting trial prisoners while not compromising the current bail procedures.

Nekaltumo prezumpcija – pamatinis ir visuotinai pripažįstamas baudžiamosios teisės principas, įtvirtintas tarptautiniuose teisės tiek nacionaliniuose teisės aktuose. Šio principo postulatas reikalauja asmenį laikyti nekaltu, jei neįrodoma priešingai ir suponuoja būtinų procesinių taisyklių laikymąsi nustatant tam tikras proceso dalyvių teises ir pareigas. Tačiau nekaltumo prezumpcijos principas turi tam tikrų prieštaravimų, kurių esminis yra tai, kad baudžiamajame procese greta nekaltumo prezumpcijos egzistuoja jos antipodas - kaltumo prezumpcija. Jei tokios nebūtų, būtų neįmanomą prieš asmenį pradėti baudžiamąjį procesą ir taikyti jam procesines prievartos priemones. Vadinasi nekaltumo prezumpcija nėra ir negali būti suabsoliutinama baudžiamajame procese, tačiau visgi ji būtina kaip asmens teisių garantas. Šiuolaikinėje baudžiamojoje teisėje, nors ir suvokiama nekaltumo prezumpcijos svarba žmogaus teisių užtikrinimo kontekste ir vienų mokslininkų laikoma objektyvia ir visuotinai privaloma teisine nuostata, visgi yra manančių, kad nekaltumo prezumpcija yra viso labo tik fikcija, neturinti praktinės reikšmės. Be to nekaltumo prezumpcija nebegalioja tik nuo to momento kai įsiteisėja kaltumą konstatuojantis teismo nuosprendis. Vadinasi kol vyksta ikiteisminis tyrimas, ar teismo procesas, daugelis aplinkybių dar nėra pilnutinai ištirtos, taigi nesibaigus teisminiam nagrinėjimui išlieka didėlė tikimybė nekaltai apkaltinti asmenį. Todėl praktikoje dažnai kyla nekaltumo prezumpcijos... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]<br>The presumption of innocence is the fundamental and general principle in the criminal law which is recognized both: internationally and nationally. The presumption of innocence - is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. This principle implies that there should be the certain and strict rules followed in the process while settling the rights and obligations of the participants of the criminal procedures. However this principle has some contradictions with other principles. The essential contradiction is with the presumption of guilt. Without the presumption of guilt there would be impossible to start the criminal proceedings and to impose coercive measures against any person. So the presumption of innocence is not and can not be considered as absolute principle, but the one which guarantees the implementation of certain rights of the person in criminal proceedings. Even though in modern criminal law the importance of the presumption of innocence to ensure human rights is realized and principle is considered as universally binding legal provision by many researchers, some researches express the opinion that presumption of innocence is pure fiction and that it has no practical significance. The presumption of innocence proceeds until someone is found guilty by final and valid court decision. Taking into the consideration mentioned above during the pre-trial investigation or during the trial many factors have not yet been fully explored and... [to full text]

Magister Legum - LLM<br>This paper attempts a comprehensive analysis of the offence of illicit enrichment in Zambia. It focuses on how the offence fits into the broader legislative framework in Zambia. More importantly, the paper addresses aspects of the offence related to the presumption ofinnocence, the protection against self-incrimination and the presumption of legality in the light of the Zambian Constitution to determine whether the concerns raised are legitimate. Also, considering the potential effectiveness of criminalising illicit enrichment by public officials, this study investigates whether the law in Zambia can be implemented to balance the constitutional rights of the accused and the right of society to recover illicitly obtained wealth. Finally, the research seeks to determine the possible challenges of implementing and prosecuting the offence, and its efficacy in the fight against corruption in Zambia.

This thesis examines the processes the American and Norwegian press go through when identifying (or not) private citizens who are suspected of or arrested for a crime. Four central principles are explored in detail and elaborated upon as they relate to the press and individuals in the criminal justice system: the public's right to know, the right to privacy, protection of reputation, and presumption of innocence. Three Norwegian newspaper editors and an independent consultant to the Norwegian Institute of Journalism elaborated on how identification of criminal suspects is determined in Norway. The Norwegian case study provides an alternative approach to identification. Both legal and ethics solutions are proposed as a way to help protect the privacy, reputation, and presumption of innocence of private individuals suspected of or arrested for a crime but without unconstitutionally intruding on press freedom.