By: BANKOLE CLIFFORD EKUNDAYO MORGAN, LL.M in International Maritime Law, Master in Governance and Leadership, Human Rights Advocate
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
In the criminal justice system generally, criminal procedure is the explanation of how criminal law is applied in practice. A key concept in criminal proceedings is known as the “Presumption of Innocence”. Presumption of Innocence, is the legal concept that posits that the accused is presumed innocent until the prosecution proves its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the accused loses such integrity and dignity only after when he is convicted. That is why usually, after the plea of an accused person, he can remain silent throughout his trial. The prosecutor by his conduct in proceeding with his case can suggest directly or by implication that the accused person is not innocent. In another instant, the trial Judge may make comments especially in a Jury trial to suggest that the accused is to be considered guilty even before verdict. Conversely, the above instances, will be unacceptable in law and practice, and the principle may then lose its ability to be real. The right to the presumption of innocence is one of the guarantees in relation to legal proceedings contained in article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which Sierra Leone is a signatory.
THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE CHARGE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IS ON THE STATE
The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty is one of those principles that influences the treatment to which an accused person is subjected from the criminal investigations through the trial, up to and including the end of the final appeal. This guarantees that guilt cannot be declared until the charge has been proven by the state. The criminal justice system of Sierra Leone sets as a standard that the burden of proof is entirely on the state and there is no duty on the defendant to assist the state in discharging its burden. This standard applies to each and every element of the crime. Relating the concept of presumption of innocence to the criminal justice system of the United States of America, there is a locus classicus case which is Re WINSHIP, 397 U.S 358 (1970). In this case the U.S. Supreme Court made it expressly clear that the presumption of innocence is a constitutional principle which is binding on the states, saying that “the Due Process clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged.”
THE PROMINENT CASE OF WOOLMINGTON v DPP (1935) UKHL
The principle of ‘Presumption of innocence’ is believed to have developed from decisions of judges otherwise known as common law. This principle was established in a celebrated case called WOOLMINGTON v DPP (1935) UKHL. In this case Lord Sankey in what was described as his “Golden Thread” speech made it clear that in a criminal case, the prosecution has the legal burden to prove that the accused is guilty based on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it can be concluded that by imposing such a strict standard, the legal burden is considered a substantial and sizable burden, where failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the burden would not be discharged. While the accused has no more than an evidential burden to raise a live issue at trial, which would most likely be a form of defence that the accused would attempt to rely on. While the legal burden comes equipped with a standard of proof to prove beyond reasonable doubt, there is no standard of proof imposed on the evidential burden, thus not a burden of proof.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
In law and practice, the presumption of innocence comes with the significance that the accused must have the right and choice to remain silent and there must be no need for him to participate in any way in the presentation of evidence. In essence, the presumption of innocence guarantees that the accused has the benefit of doubt, which has to be declared in the final decision by the presiding judge. During criminal proceedings, it is very important for the presiding judge to ignore all pre-trial evidence of guilt and determine the guilt or innocence by evaluating only the evidence presented at the trial. The trial Judge can countenance pre-trial evidence of guilt in an instance where the accused had made a confessional statement.
ALLEGATION OF COMMITTING AN OFFENCE
Generally, when one is accused of committing an offence, there is that community perception that the accused person is a criminal that is judgement has already been passed by community members though a competent court has not proven that. It is due to such perception from some members of the public that the presumption of innocence implies that people who are accused of a criminal act must be treated in accordance with due process of the law. The dispensation of pre-trial starts with how the arresting officer treats suspect whilst investigating alleged criminal offence(s). Proper handling of suspects at pre-trial stage is very important and crucial in every criminal justice system. One way to evaluate the efficacy of a country’ justice system is to examine the pre-trial process of that country.
DEFENCE LAWYER AND THE CONCEPT OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Defence lawyers should, always keep in mind the presumption of innocence when representing a client. For example, a lawyer should challenge the legitimacy of any domestic provision attempting to undermine this principle. Also, counsel should attempt to anticipate weaknesses in the prosecution’s proof and consider researching and preparing corresponding motions for judgment of acquittal if the prosecution fails to produce evidence on any element of a crime. In deciding on a defence’s strategy, the lawyer, together with the accused, should consider whether the client’s interests are best served by not putting on a defence case, and instead relying on the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Procedurally, during the proceedings, it is the accused that should take/ enter a plea of not guilty.
CONCLUSION
Conclusively, regarding presumption of innocence of the accused, there is a school of thought, who however believed that we must not bother with it. Members of this school of thought, believed that accused persons in conflict with the law, has no human rights to protect. In essence, all accused persons in conflict with the law must be kept in jail until trial. This is not true and amidst the fact that accused persons are in conflict with the law, their fundamental human rights must be “Respected, Protected and Promoted”. If we are to go by the above school of thought, then, accused persons will inundate the cells for convicted prisoners. This will also go contrary to the tenets of the protection and promotion of human rights. If all accused persons are kept in jail, such a system would be abhorrent to the inalienable right of the accused freedom. The principle of presumption of innocence, forbids the taking of an accused person’s liberty away solely on the basis of accusation. A person accused of a crime in Sierra Leone, is presumed innocent as provided by the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is evident from the above that; Presumption of Innocence in Sierra Leone is an inalienable right and at the same time a constitutional right accorded to accused persons by law. Essentially, in answering the question posed by this article: PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE: IS IT A RIGHT OR AN ILLUSSION?, I will say, in law and practice in Sierra Leone jurisdiction, Presumption of Innocence is as of Right and not an Illusion.