A reader’s comment: The dangers of conflating public concerns with the principles of criminal trials

February 26, 2009 by admin
Filed under: Law/Legal System

EDITOR’S NOTE: In August last year, the Law Minister K. Shanmugam reiterated a stand made previously by Attorney-General Walter Woon that “not guilty in law” does not mean “innocent”. In other words, a person may not be factually innocent even if the law acquits him.

I wrote an opinion piece here explaining why I thought such statements could open a can of worms, as they may encourage the public to unnecessarily speculate on cases after the courts have passed a verdict, and in so doing, undermine the very trust in the judicial process that the Courts have so valiantly sought to protect.

Ms Gabe Tan of Innocence Network UK subsequently posted a lengthy and well-considered comment in response to the ST article on the Govt defending the A-G’s stand on acquittals. Her comment is reproduced here, as I feel it is very much worth a read.

Dangers of conflating public concerns with the principles of criminal trials: Repercussions on the factually innocent

I am writing in response to the article, ‘Govt defends A-G’s stand on acquittals’ (26 August 2008) which was raised the contentious issue of whether acquittals in criminal trials necessarily represent a defendant’s ‘factual innocence’.

From a public perspective, the delivery of justice would necessarily entail the conviction of the ‘factually guilty’ and the acquittal of the ‘factually innocent’. The notion that an individual may walk free from a conviction despite having committed acts which may amount to a crime, and even worse be compensated for the acquittal, is one that will undoubtedly evoke anger and sense of social injustice.

Yet, as reasonable as public sentiments and expectations of the criminal justice system may seem, this is perhaps one that cannot and should not be conflated with what the law can and ought to deliver. At the most fundamental level, legal rules and procedures of criminal trials are in place to ensure that guilt of defendants are established through objective and rational assessment of the strength of evidence. Until then, he or she is to be presumed innocent in accordance with principles of due process.

Such legal rules and technicalities are not merely an outgrowth of abstract, jurisprudential principles which serve little purpose other than to protect potentially guilty defendants. Rather, they are established in acknowledgement that innocent individuals may be wrongly convicted in a fallible criminal justice system. Just as acquittals of the guilty may inevitably occur, so will the wrongful conviction of the factually innocent due to an extensively list of well-known causes, to mention a few- wrongful eyewitness identifications; flawed forensic and expert evidence; coerced and forced confessions; malicious prosecutions; incompetent defence; and false allegations by prosecution witnesses. The reasons are inexhaustive.

Without a crystal ball that can enlighten the courts as to the factual truth of each case, judges can only make a decision on whether the defendant is ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ on the evidence available. Procedural safeguards and constitutional rights therefore exist not only to protect the accused, but to ensure the reliability of evidence and consequently, the safety of criminal convictions.

It seems somewhat surprising that these questions relating to the factual guilt of those who have avoided convictions were raised by legally trained and judicially well-versed professionals such as the Attorney General and the Law Minister K. Shanmugam, and supported by prominent defence lawyer Mr. Subhas Anandan, whose belief in his clients’ guilt evidently did not detract him from assisting them in achieving their successful acquittals.

At best, such opinions are evidentially unsubstantiated and speculative comments which cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Worst, they may engender damaging repercussions on acquitted individuals whom may potentially be innocent by conflating them with guilty individuals who ‘got off on technicalities’. Such debates can fuel whispering campaigns of their guilt, cause further harm to their reputation which may have already been irreversibly damaged from the wrongful criminal prosecution and conviction.

Indeed, in the case of former teacher Mr. William Ding Chun Fong who was acquitted in April 2008 following a successful appeal against his conviction for molesting two male students, the magnitude of the harms that both he and his family have sustained is one that is perhaps not difficult to imagine. Mr. Tan Hee Joek, director of Drew & Napier rightly pointed out the high legal costs often incurred in seeking to overturn a wrongful conviction. But perhaps of more significance is the psychological and emotional trauma consequent of the wrongful arrest, conviction and imprisonment; the lingering social stigma associated with a criminal conviction (particularly if it is of a sexual nature); and in the case of Mr. William Ding, the possibly permanent devastation to what may otherwise, have been a meaningful and successful career as a teacher.

It is regrettable that successful acquittals in criminal courts can never fully repair the harm that has been done, nor truly restore the innocence of miscarriage of justice victims. Yet, such groundless speculations that potentially innocent victims of wrongful convictions may in fact be guilty can only unjustifiably worsen the traumatic ordeal and extensive harms experienced by them and their families.

Gabe Tan (Miss)
University of Bristol
Innocence Network UK

Tags:

Comments

3 Comments on A reader’s comment: The dangers of conflating public concerns with the principles of criminal trials

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 27 Feb 2009 on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 11:39 am

[...] Truth, Justice, and the Singapore Way – Sgpolitics: A reader’s comment: The dangers of conflating public concerns with the principles of criminal tria… [...]

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 09 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 11:02 am

[...] Truth, Justice, and the Singapore Way – Readings From A Political Duo-ble: Guantanamo in Singapore? Detention without trial as part of its criminal/legal system – The Secret Political Blog: The Picture That Spoke A Thousand Words – Sgpolitics: A reader’s comment: The dangers of conflating public concerns with the principles of criminal tria… [...]

Iklan Mudah Blog » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 09 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 11:32 am

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!