Wednesday 17 December 2008
Why there may be confusion over legal notion of innocence: Forum
Professor Woon spoke of, inter alia, the notion of innocence. He said acquittal is not always tantamount to innocence. The accused could be factually guilty but legally innocent. ‘I don’t understand why is it so hard to grasp,’ he said.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Why there may be confusion over legal notion of innocence: Forum
Straits Times
17 December 2008
I was fortunate to attend the inaugural Association of Criminal Lawyers lecture last Thursday, where Attorney-General Walter Woon spoke on the topic of ‘Prosecutorial discretion and the quest for justice’.
Professor Woon spoke of, inter alia, the notion of innocence. He said acquittal is not always tantamount to innocence. The accused could be factually guilty but legally innocent. ‘I don’t understand why is it so hard to grasp,’ he said.
I could not agree more that it is indeed a simple theory. Nonetheless, to a layman, Prof Woon’s statement, when put beside another by Court of Appeal Judge V.K. Rajah, does generate some confusion. Justice Rajah announced that all accused individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, hence when the accused is acquitted, he is considered innocent. There should not be a dividing line of factual and legal innocence. They are one and the same.
It is curious that these seemingly conflicting statements can be perfectly reconciled with each other.
In the lecture, Prof Woon mentioned that the prosecution has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of certain offences, based on the pertinent material facts, before bringing a charge against him. (TheAttorney-General also considers other factors in exercising his discretion to bring a charge.)
Hence the Attorney-General’s Chambers is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, based on the material facts available to it, that the accused is ‘factually guilty’. The problem lies with the fact that not all material facts, which convince the Attorney-General’s Chambers that the accused is guilty, are admissible in court. The prosecution hence drafts its argument based on those that are admissible.
On the other hand, the court is bound to assume that the facts submitted by the prosecution and defence are all the facts of the case. The judge arrives at a conclusion based on this set of facts. Therefore, when the judge rules that the accused is innocent based these facts, the accused is factually and legally innocent, and not factually guilty but legally innocent. This is because the court reaches its verdict based on the facts available to it. Hence, the factual and legal factors that lead to the verdict are one and the same.
The difference between the two parties is that the prosecution reaches its conclusion based on one set of facts and submits one set of facts to the court, and these two sets of facts are sometimes not exactly the same, whereas the court reaches its conclusion based on one set of facts submitted by both the prosecution and defence.
I hope my letter will help in understanding the notion of innocence.
Ju Xiao Yong
Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
Post a Comment