The defendant was charged with two offenses of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of offenses against the person act and assaut. He denied the charges claiming that the sexual intercourse had been consensual. The judge ruled that it was open to the jury to convict the defendant and that whether or not the complainant had known of the defendant condition any consent between them was irrelevant and provided no defence. The defendant chose not to give evidence and the issue was whether the complainant had consented to sexual intercourse was not left to the jury. The defendant appeal and succeeded and the issue was whether the complainant had consented to the risk of the sexual transmitted infection and to whether they knew the defendant HIV condition.
The problems that arise out of false confessions usually do not become an issue until the confession is entered into evidence at trial, with the exception of plea bargains. But it is reflected in the substantial case law surrounding false confessions that little can be done during trial, outside of suppression, without prior checks. The question remains how a confession becomes
In support of this point, when more rights are given to the victim than to the accused person, it turns the assumption of innocent until proven guilty into guilty until proven innocent. Additionally, such a measure skips the crucial step of determining whether or not an accused person is guilty and only considers how the accused may be punished. In short, an accused person must be assumed innocent until found guilty if an fair and balanced justice system is to
Despite all of that, questions may arise from the topic such as is it right to detain a person before trial just to have him to be presented on the day of trial in case he is deemed guilty or is it right for one to confiscate a suspect’s money (bail money) to be certain that he will pay for the fine later as part of his sentence? Such actions made are clear that it is violating the presumption of innocence as it was only ‘assumed’ that the person is indeed guilty and applying a pre – trial detention is based on the reliance of ‘double suspicion’ as such to the case of Sheldrake v DPP. [cite] The point is further discussed by Lord Bingham based on the case of Sheldrake v DPP, “The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right directed to that end. The Convention does not outlaw presumptions of fact or law but requires that these should be kept within reasonable limits and should not be arbitrary. It is open to states to define the constituent elements of a criminal offence, excluding the requirement of mens rea.
In fact there has been much research showing the problems with eyewitness testimony such as suggestive police interviewing, unconscious transference, and malleability of confidence (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p.227). All of these components lead to eyewitness error and essentially false incrimination. Secondly, another factor that can contribute to wrongful conviction is the use of jailhouse informants. Campbell & Denov (2016), describe jailhouse informants as prisoner informants that “provide information to law enforcement officials in exchange for money, property, or the promise of leniency in sentencing” (p. 229). This can be problematic because jurors place value on the
During the course of a criminal trial, adversaries are tasked with convincing the judge or jury to believe their perspective on the case. Justice is pursued, but not always achieved. Justice in a criminal trial is achieved when the innocent is found innocent and the guilty is found guilty. The adversarial system tasks the judge with choosing the most persuasive argument. This is not justice, but a process of persuasion and wit.
An additional step of inference is necessary in circumstantial evidence which demands a speculation on inductive instead of deductive grounds. This adduces the perception that it is less credible. For example, instead of “given X, Y must follow,” circumstantial evidence works as such – “given X, it is likely that Y will follow.” Thus, it is natural to be skeptical of the credibility of circumstantial evidence as the use of assumptions and generalizations are innately less precise and ultimately, the truth is still unknown. Therefore, the possibility that there might be another probable (and innocent) explanation for the existence of that evidence must also be contemplated upon. III.
“Convictions generated through plea bargaining are less related to the evidence, and, hence, to actual guilt, than convictions generated by trial” (GilChrist). This serves as an injustice to society because the plea has no restrictions or prerequisites. In order to reform the policy, the article suggest that plea bargains must have some type of evidence of actual guilt before the plea can be given so it will not put those who are innocent in the same category of those who are truly guilty. Allowing the innocent to believe they stand a chance in a trial is important. “Compelling the innocent to lie in order to secure the beneﬁt of a plea bargain further undermines the perceived integrity of the legal system by denying the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to be heard” (GilChrist).
Introduction Many important court cases depend on memory-based evidence. When there is not enough physical evidence to convict a suspect, law enforcement relies on testimonies and confessions to put criminals behind bars, yet, not all testimonies are reliable. Throughout the years, there have been many people who have been falsely convicted based on inadequate police interrogation methods that allowed for false confessions to occur. Effectiveness of Interrogation Methods Used by Civil Law Enforcement Every level of law enforcement uses some form of interrogation to get valuable information from a person. Police officers interrogate persons of interest to get information such as alibis, motives and witness accounts.
But in the law of confessions, it is required that confessions are not coerced but be voluntary so that it is admitted into evidence. There are ethical issues that need to be recognized in interrogation which are, the use of false evidence, the use of torture, and deceptive promises. Starting off an interrogation, police will usually comfort a suspect by giving evidence that is not true, with the intention to make the suspect end up voluntarily confessing. Giving false evidence has a number of planning’s. One with the officer telling the suspect that he or