Not Guilty v Innocent

Innocent until proven guilty…but what does actually mean?

We were asked to explain what ‘innocent until proven guilty’ practically means.

(Also known as the presumption of innocence.)

Well, first off it states that the starting point, if you like, is that a person is innocent of a crime until it can be shown that they are otherwise. Whilst this seems common sense, we saw just yesterday with the Vicky Pryce jury questions, that even what we consider simple concepts can become a little cloudy when not viewed in the abstract.

Essentially, it means that the burden of proof lies with he (or she) who makes an allegation, not he (or she) who denies it.

What does that mean? Well it means that when someone is brought to court charged with a criminal offence, it is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty.

The defendant bears no burden of proving anything and it is not his task to prove his innocence – There is no obligation for the defendant to do anything at all

A defendant does not have to answer questions in a police interview, nor provide what is called a defence case statement (a document setting out the basics of their defence). Similarly, they do not have to give evidence at trial. In fact, they are not obliged to provide an explanation (or an answer) to any of the issues posed by the prosecution.

Juries are permitted to draw adverse inferences from a defendant’s silence and so most defendant’s do in some greater or lesser extent, ‘answer’ the allegations against them. We will deal with this in another post.

A person cannot be imprisoned (or otherwise punished) for a crime unless they have been proven guilty to the required standard

What sort of society would we live in if people could be imprisoned based on spurious allegations which had been untested by a criminal trial? ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ protects individuals and organisations from being unfairly punished for allegations against them which have not been shown to be true.

What is the burden and standard of proof?

Burden of proof – this is the duty to prove or disprove a disputed fact or assertion.

Standard of proof – this is the level to which something must be proved.

The prosecution proves its case if the jury, having considered all the evidence relevant to the charge they are considering, are sure that the defendant is guilty.

In the Pryce trial yesterday, Sweeny J when asked to explain what beyond reasonable doubt meant, said, ‘a doubt that is reasonable – these are ordinary English words’.

What about evidence?

Well as a case is brought by the prosecution, and they have the burden of proof, it is for them to collect the evidence to reinforce their claims that the defendant is guilty as they so allege.

Of course, the defendant has a right of reply (to answer the allegations made against him or her) and to call his own evidence (to reinforce his claims of innocence).
Click to expand...

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/innocent-until-proven-guiltybut-what-does-actually-mean/
 
Xordium, thanks for your reply.

Regarding extradition I am no expert, but I think that there is a presumption that the requesting state has a fir system of justice, it can certainly be a bar to extradition if the defendant will not get a fair trial.

There also has to be a prima facie case against the accused, not of a UK offence, but of an offence in the requesting country, hence the arguments in the Assange case, not rape as we understand it, but maybe so in Sweeden.

In short rather than reverse the Burden of proof it simply enforces the right of the requesting state to try an accused of crimes. Obviously if an accused can show that there is no real case against him he will not be extradited, or if he can't get a fair trial, (or is at risk of torture, other breach of human rights), to that extent there is a reversal of the presumption in favour of extradition, but then that is similar to remanding someone in custody, and reversing the presumption of them being granted bail.

Once the defendant is extradited he still has his right to a fair trial in that country, and I assume in many cases a right to bail.

This rather long article deals with the compensation, innocence point:
https://thinkinglegally.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/victor-nealon-miscarriage-of-justice-case-against-chris-grayling/
 
Cheers, for that. I can equate it then towards an extended arrest with the intention of a fair trial. I find this interesting. My experience with legal concepts has been more as a witness and covering the basic ethical principles that they are founded upon. The application is quite interesting to learn about.
 
Orionaut said:
Except that the removal of double jeopardy protection (in the UK) basically blows that out of the water.
Click to expand...
Apart from it doesn't. Even with double jeopardy removed, the prosecution could try you as many times as it wants but if it never gets a guilty conviction you are in the eyes of the law innocent of the charge.
grumpysculler said:
aka "Not guilty and don't do it again"
Click to expand...
:D
 
People are often found guilty without any evidence. Not sure why that is fair, but that is how a jury and court system works. I have a mate locked up right now who is awaiting for his appeal to be sorted because he was refused a fair trial. None of his own evidence to prove his innocence was allowed in the court room.

Only takes a bad day in court, with a judge with a made up mind, to ruin the "justice" system.

The jury couldn't make a decision after the first day and the judge addressed them directly on the next day before they made judgement. He influenced them, which to me is wrong.

Ironically, his new solicitors are confidence of an appeal because of this same evidence that was previously refused in open court. Absolute bonkers our legal system.
 
robgmun said:
End of story
Click to expand...

but from what I've got from this thread is that you are missing out a word before innocent which is presumed.

You are presumed innocent unless you are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
If you are found not guilty then you are 'Presumed Innocent'.
Presumed innocent is not the same as innocent and to be innocent you have to prove it.
I finally get it now.
 
Dis86 said:
AS Xordium says one is an ethical measure the other more of a criminal measure.

For example if you were to, in self defense and using reasonable force, kill an intruder in your home that was attempting to harm you or your family you would probably be found 'not guilty' of murder. You would not however be innocent.
Click to expand...

You probably wouldn't be found not guilty of murder because you probably wouldn't be tried for murder. It's rare for anyone with any reasonable claim of defence to end up on trial, even if someone dies. Trials only usually occur if there's some uncertainty about whether the force used was reasonable (e.g. someone was tried after shooting someone dead through a window, i.e. before that person broke in - they were acquitted on the grounds of reasonable force).

In your example, I would regard the killer as being innocent because I would regard their actions as ethical. I agree with the distinction you make, though - "not guilty" is a legal judgement and "innocent" is an ethical judgement.

Although given the repercussions of being charged even if you're acquitted (especially with some crimes) I think there might be a case for having three legal verdicts:

Guilty - proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Not Guilty - not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, therefore to be assumed to be innocent at least in the eyes of the law.

Proven Innocent - proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt, e.g. they could prove that there were somewhere else at the time. So it shouldn't be on record to blight the rest of their life (CRB checks, etc).
 
stopper said:
It's not. English common law is innocent until proven guilty. The legal system is guilty until proven innocent.
When a police officer charges you and you sign the bail sheet, you are agreeing to their terms and accept you are guilty and that you have to prove your innocence in a court. That is a legal process.
You literally sign away your common law rights and enter their man made (legal) system.
Not many people know this anymore because they conveniently no longer teach it in public education.
Click to expand...

Not many people know that for the same reason that not many people know that there's a portal to Narnia in a toilet in the House of Commons - it's not true.

But I am curious about something. You appear to be claiming that English common law wasn't made by people (since you contrast it with the English legal system on that basis). So where do you think English common law comes from? Aliens? Gods? Did Odin write it?
 
Dimple said:
And the circle continues.

Let's go back to Barry George and the killing of Jill Dando.
He was found guilty, went to prison and for years people fought for him to be retried.
He was acquitted on retrial and found not guilty, he was then retried again and found unanimously not guilty.
He then tried to get compensation but he can't get it because he hasn't proved he is innocent so this makes me think that Not Guilty can't be the same as Innocent.
Click to expand...

That's a different issue again. That compensation is paid when a person is wrongfully convicted because of a failure for which the justice system is liable. He wasn't refused compensation because he hasn't proved he was innocent. He was refused compensation because he hasn't proved that the justice system was guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom