Presumption Of Innocence In Criminal Law

2136 Words9 Pages
The presumption of innocence is widely accepted as an integral and significant principle of the criminal justice that lawyers all over the world adhere to as it is a tenant of the Criminal Law. The presumption of innocence can be defined as a misnomer; a name that is wrongly or unsuitably applied to a person or an object. It also can be described as an assumption made towards an innocent that is included in the absence of opposing evidence. It is shown in the case of Taylor v Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct 1930, 56 L. However, it is not considered as an evidence of the defendant’s innocence and it does not require any compulsory inference that are favourable towards the defendant from any facts of the evidence.
In some countries like South
…show more content…
(Mueller, Christopher B.; Laird C. Kirkpatrick (2009). Evidence; 4th ed. Aspen (Wolters Kluwer). ISBN 978-0-7355-7968-2. pp. 133–34.) This was expressed in the phase “innocent until proven guilty” which was coined by an English lawyer, Sir William Garrow (1760 – 1840) (Moore, Christopher (1997). The Law Society of Upper Canada and Ontario's lawyers, 1797–1997. University of Toronto Press.) The presumption of innocence is actually a legal instrument that was created by the French cardinal and jurist, Jean Lemoine, in order to favour the accused based on the legal position that not everyone is a criminal. (Words and Phrases 1914, p.…show more content…
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. But the substance and effect of any presumption adverse to a defendant must be examined, and must be reasonable.”

More about Presumption Of Innocence In Criminal Law

Open Document