We have often heard of the term, Innocent until proven guilty.
And now we know that just because one is not found guilty in court did not necessary mean one is innocent.
So what does that mean? That no one is truly innocent once that person is charged in court?
And that guilt or innocence is just by reasonable doubt? And that by innocence, it is only legally innocent and not really innocent.
------------------------
The Straits Times
25 Aug 2008
Not guilty = innocent?
A MAN is charged with a crime. After a trial, he is acquitted and goes free. Does that mean he is innocent?
Not necessarily.
Witnesses may have changed their evidence or a technicality may have got in the way. The end result: The prosecution is unable to convince the judge that the man had done the deed.
And once there is a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, duty requires that the judge acquit the man.
Said Law Minister K. Shanmugam in Parliament on Monday: 'It is entirely possible for a person to have committed acts which amount to a crime and yet, there may be no conviction. No serious lawyer will question this possibility.''
He was responding to two lawyer-MPs, who wanted him to clarify the position of the Attorney-General on the subject of acquittals.
The issue of guilt and innocence has been in the air since mid-May when AG Walter Woon stated that an acquitted person may be 'not guilty'' in law, but guilty in fact.
Two months later, Appeal Court Judge V K Rajah weighed in on the issue, noting that such comments could undermine confidence in the courts' verdicts and the criminal justice system which is predicated on the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty''.
Not so, said Mr Shanmugam.
He described the presumption of innocence as an 'important and fundamental principle'' which the Government is 'absolutely committed to upholding.'' 'There is no intention to question or qualify that principle in any way. I am surprised that any doubt should at all have arisen about this,'' he said.
Nor does the Government have any intention to encroach on the functions of the Courts.
'It is for the courts, and the courts alone, to exercise judicial power and decide the question of guilt, in a trial.''
The position taken by the AG was a logical one, the same as that taken by his predecessor Chan Sek Keong, now the Chief Justice, he said.
CJ Chan had pointed out in a lecture in 1996 that the trial process was designed to prove guilt - not innocence.
Quoting from the lecture, Mr Shanmugam reported the then-AG saying that the presumption of innocence is a presumption that an accused is 'legally innocent."
'It is simply an expression, that in a criminal trial, the procesecution is obliged to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,'' said Mr Shanmugam.
The AG's position was also consistent with jurisprudence from Commonwealth countries, such as England and Scotland.
----------------------------
The Straits Times
26 Aug 2008
Govt defends A-G's stand
Law Minister reiterates that 'not guilty in law' does not mean 'innocent'
By K.C.Vijayan
A MAN is charged with a crime. After a trial, he is acquitted and goes free. Does that mean he is innocent?
Not necessarily.
Witnesses may have changed their evidence, or a technicality may have got in the way. What this amounts to: The prosecution is unable to convince the judge that the man had done the deed.
And once there is any reasonable doubt as to an accused's guilt, duty requires that the judge acquit him.
Law Minister K. Shanmugam told Parliament yesterday: 'It is entirely possible for a person to have committed acts which amount to a crime and yet, there may be no conviction. I emphasise this: No serious lawyer will question this possibility.'
He was responding to two lawyer-MPs, who wanted him to clarify the position of the Attorney-General on the subject of acquittals. The issue has been up in the air since mid-May, when Attorney-General Walter Woon stated that an acquitted person may be 'not guilty' in law, but 'guilty' in fact.
Two months later, Appeal Court Judge V. K. Rajah weighed in on the issue. He did not refer to what the Attorney-General said, but made it clear that such comments could undermine confidence in the courts' verdicts and the criminal justice system, which is based on the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Not so, said Mr Shanmugam.
He described the presumption of innocence as an 'important and fundamental principle' which the Government is 'absolutely committed to upholding'.
'There is no intention to question or qualify that principle in any way. I am surprised that any doubt should at all have arisen about this.'
The Government has no intention of encroaching on the functions of the courts either, he added. 'It is for the courts, and the courts alone, to exercise judicial power and decide the question of guilt, in a trial.'
The Attorney-General's position is similar to that of his predecessor, Mr Chan Sek Keong, now the Chief Justice, Mr Shanmugam said.
CJ Chan had pointed out in a lecture in 1996 that the trial process was designed to prove guilt, not innocence.
Quoting from the lecture, Mr Shanmugam reported the then Attorney-General as saying that the presumption of innocence amounts to saying an accused person is 'legally innocent'.
'It is simply an expression that in a criminal trial, the prosecution is obliged to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,' said Mr Shanmugam.
The system in places such as England and Scotland is similar. In fact, Scotland has a third verdict - 'not proven' - besides 'guilty' and 'not guilty'. While 'not guilty' is a positive declaration of innocence, 'not proven' implies that guilt has not been conclusively proven.
Even as he stuck to his guns, Mr Shanmugam cautioned against jumping the other way. 'Just as a person acquitted may not necessarily be innocent, he may well also be, in fact, innocent.'
Lawyers The Straits Times contacted said the concepts of legal innocence and factual guilt have always been there, and agreed with Mr Shanmugam that accused persons may sometimes go free.
Association of Criminal Lawyers Singapore president Subhas Anandan said he had defended clients in the past who were acquitted for one reason or other, but whom he felt were guilty in fact.
'An accused person is not going to bother if he is factually guilty. All he wants is to be be able to walk away free.'
The reverse also applies: where a person is factually innocent but legally guilty. 'This happens where the accused wants to plead guilty to a lesser charge and end the case... because his interest is to walk away as quickly as possible.'
-----------------------------
The Straits Times
12 July 2008
Judge: No question of 'factual guilt' after acquittal
Justice V.K. Rajah takes issue with Govt's position on guilt and innocence
By K. C. Vijayan
A HIGH Court judge has taken issue with the Government's position that people acquitted of crimes may not necessarily be innocent.
Judge of Appeal V.K. Rajah said it was a cornerstone of the justice system that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and it was for prosecutors to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
He said: 'If the evidence is insufficient to support the prosecution's theory of guilt, and if the weaknesses in the prosecution's case reveal a deficiency in what is necessary for a conviction, the judge must acquit the accused and with good reason: it simply has not been proved to the satisfaction of the law that the accused is guilty, and the presumption of innocence stands unrebutted.
'It is not helpful, therefore, for suggestions to be subsequently raised about the accused's 'factual guilt' once he has been acquitted.'
To do so, he added, would be to undermine the court's not-guilty finding. It would also 'stand the presumption of innocence on its head, replacing it with an insidious and open-ended suspicion of guilt that an accused person would be hard-pressed to ever shed, even upon vindication in a court of law.'
His remarks on acquittal, innocence and guilt came near the end of his written judgment explaining why he acquitted former teacher William Ding, 36, of molesting several schoolboys.
While he did not say so, his comments appear directed at the position taken by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) in The Straits Times on May 8 and May 14.
The AGC was quoted in the first article as saying that a judge was bound by law to acquit a person if the prosecution could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
'This means that if there is any reasonable doubt, the accused gets the benefit of it. It does not mean that the accused was innocent in the sense that he did not do the deed,' its spokesman said.
The AGC later wrote to the Forum Page and said that the nuance of an acquittal was often not clearly appreciated by the public.
'(The accused person) may be guilty in fact, but innocent in law because the evidence was not there,' its spokesman said.
That position took many, including lawyers, by surprise. Lawyer N. Sreenivasan wrote to the Forum Page saying such a view was of 'grave concern'.
'If the prosecution, with the full resources of the police, the power to interrogate accused persons, interview witnesses, seize evidence and rely on various presumptions, cannot prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, then the prosecution should not cast any cloud on the acquittal of the accused,' said Mr Sreenivasan.
In his written judgment, Justice Rajah said he had no doubt that prosecutions are begun only after careful investigation, but emphasised that 'the decision of guilt or innocence is constitutionally for the court and the court alone to make'.
'The court cannot convict if a reasonable doubt remains to prevent the presumption of innocence from being rebutted,' he added.
'In that result, there is no room for second-guessing or nice distinctions; there is only one meaning to 'not proved' and that is that it has not been established in the eyes of the law that the accused has committed the offence with which he has been charged.'
The question a court has to decide on is not whether it suspects the accused has done the deed, he added, but whether the prosecution has proven it beyond any reasonable doubt.
'Objective and not subjective belief is the essential touchstone of guilt and there is simply no place for subsequent speculation or implication that an acquitted accused may be 'factually guilty',' said Justice Rajah.
He noted that Singapore's adversarial system was not flawless, and perfectly proper prosecutions may sometimes fail for unexpected reasons. But the system was 'eminently credible, pragmatic and effective'.
'The rules are clear and precise, and neither the prosecution nor defence can or should complain if they fail by them,' he said.
Justice Rajah, who has been on the bench since 2004, was made a Judge of Appeal last year and also headed a committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the legal sector.
The judge also said that the doctrine of reasonable doubt was neither abstract nor theoretical.
'It has real, practical and profound implications in sifting the innocent from the guilty: in deciding who should suffer punishment and who should not,' he said.
Calling it a 'a bedrock principle of the criminal justice system' here, he said it was one which served public confidence that Singapore's system punishes only those who are guilty.
And now we know that just because one is not found guilty in court did not necessary mean one is innocent.
So what does that mean? That no one is truly innocent once that person is charged in court?
And that guilt or innocence is just by reasonable doubt? And that by innocence, it is only legally innocent and not really innocent.
------------------------
The Straits Times
25 Aug 2008
Not guilty = innocent?
A MAN is charged with a crime. After a trial, he is acquitted and goes free. Does that mean he is innocent?
Not necessarily.
Witnesses may have changed their evidence or a technicality may have got in the way. The end result: The prosecution is unable to convince the judge that the man had done the deed.
And once there is a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, duty requires that the judge acquit the man.
Said Law Minister K. Shanmugam in Parliament on Monday: 'It is entirely possible for a person to have committed acts which amount to a crime and yet, there may be no conviction. No serious lawyer will question this possibility.''
He was responding to two lawyer-MPs, who wanted him to clarify the position of the Attorney-General on the subject of acquittals.
The issue of guilt and innocence has been in the air since mid-May when AG Walter Woon stated that an acquitted person may be 'not guilty'' in law, but guilty in fact.
Two months later, Appeal Court Judge V K Rajah weighed in on the issue, noting that such comments could undermine confidence in the courts' verdicts and the criminal justice system which is predicated on the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty''.
Not so, said Mr Shanmugam.
He described the presumption of innocence as an 'important and fundamental principle'' which the Government is 'absolutely committed to upholding.'' 'There is no intention to question or qualify that principle in any way. I am surprised that any doubt should at all have arisen about this,'' he said.
Nor does the Government have any intention to encroach on the functions of the Courts.
'It is for the courts, and the courts alone, to exercise judicial power and decide the question of guilt, in a trial.''
The position taken by the AG was a logical one, the same as that taken by his predecessor Chan Sek Keong, now the Chief Justice, he said.
CJ Chan had pointed out in a lecture in 1996 that the trial process was designed to prove guilt - not innocence.
Quoting from the lecture, Mr Shanmugam reported the then-AG saying that the presumption of innocence is a presumption that an accused is 'legally innocent."
'It is simply an expression, that in a criminal trial, the procesecution is obliged to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,'' said Mr Shanmugam.
The AG's position was also consistent with jurisprudence from Commonwealth countries, such as England and Scotland.
----------------------------
The Straits Times
26 Aug 2008
Govt defends A-G's stand
Law Minister reiterates that 'not guilty in law' does not mean 'innocent'
By K.C.Vijayan
A MAN is charged with a crime. After a trial, he is acquitted and goes free. Does that mean he is innocent?
Not necessarily.
Witnesses may have changed their evidence, or a technicality may have got in the way. What this amounts to: The prosecution is unable to convince the judge that the man had done the deed.
And once there is any reasonable doubt as to an accused's guilt, duty requires that the judge acquit him.
Law Minister K. Shanmugam told Parliament yesterday: 'It is entirely possible for a person to have committed acts which amount to a crime and yet, there may be no conviction. I emphasise this: No serious lawyer will question this possibility.'
He was responding to two lawyer-MPs, who wanted him to clarify the position of the Attorney-General on the subject of acquittals. The issue has been up in the air since mid-May, when Attorney-General Walter Woon stated that an acquitted person may be 'not guilty' in law, but 'guilty' in fact.
Two months later, Appeal Court Judge V. K. Rajah weighed in on the issue. He did not refer to what the Attorney-General said, but made it clear that such comments could undermine confidence in the courts' verdicts and the criminal justice system, which is based on the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Not so, said Mr Shanmugam.
He described the presumption of innocence as an 'important and fundamental principle' which the Government is 'absolutely committed to upholding'.
'There is no intention to question or qualify that principle in any way. I am surprised that any doubt should at all have arisen about this.'
The Government has no intention of encroaching on the functions of the courts either, he added. 'It is for the courts, and the courts alone, to exercise judicial power and decide the question of guilt, in a trial.'
The Attorney-General's position is similar to that of his predecessor, Mr Chan Sek Keong, now the Chief Justice, Mr Shanmugam said.
CJ Chan had pointed out in a lecture in 1996 that the trial process was designed to prove guilt, not innocence.
Quoting from the lecture, Mr Shanmugam reported the then Attorney-General as saying that the presumption of innocence amounts to saying an accused person is 'legally innocent'.
'It is simply an expression that in a criminal trial, the prosecution is obliged to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,' said Mr Shanmugam.
The system in places such as England and Scotland is similar. In fact, Scotland has a third verdict - 'not proven' - besides 'guilty' and 'not guilty'. While 'not guilty' is a positive declaration of innocence, 'not proven' implies that guilt has not been conclusively proven.
Even as he stuck to his guns, Mr Shanmugam cautioned against jumping the other way. 'Just as a person acquitted may not necessarily be innocent, he may well also be, in fact, innocent.'
Lawyers The Straits Times contacted said the concepts of legal innocence and factual guilt have always been there, and agreed with Mr Shanmugam that accused persons may sometimes go free.
Association of Criminal Lawyers Singapore president Subhas Anandan said he had defended clients in the past who were acquitted for one reason or other, but whom he felt were guilty in fact.
'An accused person is not going to bother if he is factually guilty. All he wants is to be be able to walk away free.'
The reverse also applies: where a person is factually innocent but legally guilty. 'This happens where the accused wants to plead guilty to a lesser charge and end the case... because his interest is to walk away as quickly as possible.'
-----------------------------
The Straits Times
12 July 2008
Judge: No question of 'factual guilt' after acquittal
Justice V.K. Rajah takes issue with Govt's position on guilt and innocence
By K. C. Vijayan
A HIGH Court judge has taken issue with the Government's position that people acquitted of crimes may not necessarily be innocent.
Judge of Appeal V.K. Rajah said it was a cornerstone of the justice system that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and it was for prosecutors to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
He said: 'If the evidence is insufficient to support the prosecution's theory of guilt, and if the weaknesses in the prosecution's case reveal a deficiency in what is necessary for a conviction, the judge must acquit the accused and with good reason: it simply has not been proved to the satisfaction of the law that the accused is guilty, and the presumption of innocence stands unrebutted.
'It is not helpful, therefore, for suggestions to be subsequently raised about the accused's 'factual guilt' once he has been acquitted.'
To do so, he added, would be to undermine the court's not-guilty finding. It would also 'stand the presumption of innocence on its head, replacing it with an insidious and open-ended suspicion of guilt that an accused person would be hard-pressed to ever shed, even upon vindication in a court of law.'
His remarks on acquittal, innocence and guilt came near the end of his written judgment explaining why he acquitted former teacher William Ding, 36, of molesting several schoolboys.
While he did not say so, his comments appear directed at the position taken by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) in The Straits Times on May 8 and May 14.
The AGC was quoted in the first article as saying that a judge was bound by law to acquit a person if the prosecution could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
'This means that if there is any reasonable doubt, the accused gets the benefit of it. It does not mean that the accused was innocent in the sense that he did not do the deed,' its spokesman said.
The AGC later wrote to the Forum Page and said that the nuance of an acquittal was often not clearly appreciated by the public.
'(The accused person) may be guilty in fact, but innocent in law because the evidence was not there,' its spokesman said.
That position took many, including lawyers, by surprise. Lawyer N. Sreenivasan wrote to the Forum Page saying such a view was of 'grave concern'.
'If the prosecution, with the full resources of the police, the power to interrogate accused persons, interview witnesses, seize evidence and rely on various presumptions, cannot prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, then the prosecution should not cast any cloud on the acquittal of the accused,' said Mr Sreenivasan.
In his written judgment, Justice Rajah said he had no doubt that prosecutions are begun only after careful investigation, but emphasised that 'the decision of guilt or innocence is constitutionally for the court and the court alone to make'.
'The court cannot convict if a reasonable doubt remains to prevent the presumption of innocence from being rebutted,' he added.
'In that result, there is no room for second-guessing or nice distinctions; there is only one meaning to 'not proved' and that is that it has not been established in the eyes of the law that the accused has committed the offence with which he has been charged.'
The question a court has to decide on is not whether it suspects the accused has done the deed, he added, but whether the prosecution has proven it beyond any reasonable doubt.
'Objective and not subjective belief is the essential touchstone of guilt and there is simply no place for subsequent speculation or implication that an acquitted accused may be 'factually guilty',' said Justice Rajah.
He noted that Singapore's adversarial system was not flawless, and perfectly proper prosecutions may sometimes fail for unexpected reasons. But the system was 'eminently credible, pragmatic and effective'.
'The rules are clear and precise, and neither the prosecution nor defence can or should complain if they fail by them,' he said.
Justice Rajah, who has been on the bench since 2004, was made a Judge of Appeal last year and also headed a committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the legal sector.
The judge also said that the doctrine of reasonable doubt was neither abstract nor theoretical.
'It has real, practical and profound implications in sifting the innocent from the guilty: in deciding who should suffer punishment and who should not,' he said.
Calling it a 'a bedrock principle of the criminal justice system' here, he said it was one which served public confidence that Singapore's system punishes only those who are guilty.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment