Presumption of Innocence Uk Case Law
Justice is best served when trials are held quickly. This helps to protect the presumption of innocence and minimise the human impact of criminal proceedings on victims, witnesses and persons accused of a crime. In many countries and legal systems, including common law and civil law (not to be confused with the other type of civil law dealing with non-criminal legal issues), the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in criminal proceedings. It is also an international human right under Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the United Kingdom, changes have been made to reflect this principle. The criminal record of accused persons may be disclosed to jurors in certain circumstances. Although the suspect is not obliged to answer questions after his official arrest, failure to provide information can now be detrimental in the process. There is also a law that provides for criminal penalties for failure to decrypt data at the request of the police. If the suspect is unwilling to do so, it is a criminal offence. [37] Citizens can therefore be convicted and imprisoned without proof that the encrypted material was illegal. In addition, in cases of sexual offences such as rape where the sexual act has already been proven beyond a doubt, there are a limited number of circumstances in which the defendant is required to provide evidence that the complainant consented to the sexual act or that the accused reasonably believed that he consented to it. These circumstances include, for example, where the complainant has been unconscious, unlawfully detained or subjected to violence. [38] Your email address will be used to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and if the author or moderator of the article needs to contact you directly.
52. My reconstruction of Murray`s case comes mainly from the London Metropolitan Archives (LMA) correspondence books, which record correspondence between the Thames Police Office and the Home Office. See Letter Books of Magistrates at Thames Police Office, Wapping, 1804–42, shelfmark PS. T/1/Briefbücher/1–5 (Mikrofilm X83/1–2) [hereinafter Thames PO Letter Book]. (I am grateful to Louise Falcini for sharing with me her transcripts of these books of letters.) Further details of the arrest are contained in the Daily Police Report, a daily account of activity in the offices of the Metropolitan Police that exists at the National Archives in a series from 1828 to 1839. See HO 62, Home Office: Daily Reports from Metropolitan Police Offices (1828–39). The report noted that “Edward Bloxham and Thomas Murray illegally possessed at Saint Giles four hundred weights of lead that had been stolen.” Daily Police Report, 24 October 1836, HO 62/18. “Execution Dock” referred to the site between Wapping New Stairs and King Edward`s Stairs where “pirates, mutineers and other sailors” were hanged from the late sixteenth to mid-nineteenth centuries. See Rediker, Marcus, Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Merchant Seamen, Pirates, and the Anglo-American Maritime World, 1700–1750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 24–27Google Scholar.
1. Williams, Glanville, The Proof of Guilt: A Study of the English Criminal Trial, 2nd ed., London: Stevens & Sons, 1958, 152Google Scholar. The reference to “golden thread” comes from Wool-mington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] A.C. 462Google Scholar [H.L.], considered the “pivotal case” of the burden of proof in English criminal law. See Phipson on Evidence, ed. Howard, M. N., 15th edition (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000), 59Google Scholar. 2. The scientific understanding of the presumption varies. In the words of a prominent American treaty, the presumption “is generally understood to mean nothing more than the indictment. the burden of proving guilty in order to avoid a directed judgment” and “convincing the investigator of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction.” LaFave, Wayne R.
and Scott, Austin W. Jr., Nouns Criminal Law (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1986Google Scholar), §1.8, 81 (emphasis added). According to two leading English commentators, the presumption of innocence means nothing more than “that the prosecution is bound to prove the facts against [the accused] beyond doubt.” Sir Cross, Rupert et Tapper, Colin, Cross on Evidence, 7e édition.
