Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:51:31.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - The presumption of innocence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

John D. Jackson
Affiliation:
University College Dublin
Sarah J. Summers
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Although the maxim ‘presumption of innocence’ can be traced in common law history as far back as the days of Bracton and in continental history as far back as three centuries later, it is only in recent times that it has acquired considerable constitutional prominence. We have seen that it was enshrined in the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen and in his study of human rights in national constitutions conducted some years ago Bassiouni found that it was contained in at least sixty-seven national constitutions across the common law and civil law world. The presumption of innocence has also been recognised in a wide range of international instruments such as the ICCPR, the ECHR, the ACHR and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and by the international criminal tribunals and courts.

Before we examine how this principle has been applied across the two dominant legal traditions and by international human rights regimes, however, it will help our analysis if we are clear about what we mean by the presumption. Despite becoming so accepted, there is often a lack of clarity about what it means and we will argue that this can serve to obscure its central importance. As we shall see, it is commonly discussed exclusively within the context of a rule of evidence requiring a high standard of proof before conviction. But it is sometimes used in terms which make it almost synonymous with the right to a fair trial encompassing the fair trial standards we have discussed so far. In broader terms, it is also used to signify the right of individuals to be protected against coercive measures by the state or the right not to be convicted for crimes of which one is ‘morally’ innocent. In the first section we consider three rather different fields of application which can be viewed on a sliding scale from the particular to the general. We then go on to consider how the presumption has been regarded across the common law and civil law divide and by international human rights regimes.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence
Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions
, pp. 199 - 240
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Thayer, J. B.A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common LawBostonLittle, Brown 1898Google Scholar
Bassiouni, M. C.Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice: Identifying International Procedural Protections in National Constitutions 1992 3 Duke Journal of Comparative and International LawGoogle Scholar
1990
Eisenberg, U.Beweisrecht der StPOMunichC. H. Beck 2008Google Scholar
Schmid, N.Handbuch des schweizerischen StrafprozessrechtsZurichDike 2009Google Scholar
James, G. F.Relevancy, Probability and the Law 1941 29 California Law ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrose, J. L.Basic Concepts of the Law of Evidence 1954 70 Law Quarterly ReviewGoogle Scholar
Roxin, C.Schünemann, B.StrafverfahrensrechtMunichC. H. Beck 2009Google Scholar
Tapper, C.Cross & Tapper on EvidenceOxford University Press 2007Google Scholar
Safferling, C. J. M.Towards an International Criminal ProcedureOxford University Press 2002Google Scholar
Jackson, J. 2007
Van Den Wyngaert, C.Criminal Procedure Systems in the European CommunityLondonButterworths 1992 22Google Scholar
Waaben, K.Criminal Responsibility and the Quantum of Proof 1965 9 Scandinavian Studies in LawGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, G. P.Two Kinds of Legal Rules: A Comparative Study of Burden-of- Persuasion Practices in Criminal Cases 1968 77 Yale Law Journal880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtappels, P.Die Entwicklung des Grundsatzes ‘in dubio pro reo’CramDe Gruyter 1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zopfs, J.Der Grundsatz ‘in dubio pro reoBaden-BadenNomos 1999Google Scholar
Wigmore, J. H.A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common LawBostonLittle, Brown 1940Google Scholar
Roberts, P.Zuckerman, A.Criminal EvidenceOxford University Press 2010 559Google Scholar
Laudan, L.Truth, Error and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal EpistemologyCambridge University Press 2006 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, A.Farmer, L.Marshall, S.Tadros, V.The Trial on Trial (3): Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal TrialOxfordHart 2007 113Google Scholar
Ho, H. L.A Philosophy of Evidence LawOxford University Press 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, J.The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal TrialNew HavenYale University Press 2008Google Scholar
Dworkin, R.A Matter of PrincipleOxfordClarendon 1986 80Google Scholar
Stein, A.Foundations of Evidence LawOxford University Press 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leng, R.Losing Sight of the Burden of Proof? A Challenge to Symmetrical Assumptions about AdmissibilityThe Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal CasesWindsor Castle 1999 12Google Scholar
D. M. RisingerGuilt vs. Guiltiness: Are the Right Rules for Trying Factual Innocence Inevitably the Wrong Rules for Trying Culpability? 2008 38 Seton Hall Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Risinger, D. M.Baserates, the Presumption of Guilt, Admissibility Rulings, and Erroneous Conviction 2003 4 Michigan State Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Pattenden, R.The Proof Rules of Pre-Verdict Judicial Fact-Finding in Criminal Trials by Jury 2008 125 Law Quarterly Review79Google Scholar
Juy-Birmann, R.The German SystemEuropean Criminal ProceduresCambridge University Press 2002 292Google Scholar
Schwikkard, P. J.The Presumption of InnocenceCape TownJuta 1999 36Google Scholar
Trechsel, S.Human Rights in Criminal ProceedingsOxford University Press 2005Google Scholar
Stavros, S.The Guarantees for Accused Persons under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human RightsDordrechtMartinus Nijhoff 1993Google Scholar
Ashworth, A.Four Threats to the Presumption of Innocence 2006 10 International Journal of Evidence & ProofCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J.The Effect of Legal Culture and Proof in Decisions to Prosecute 2004 3 Law, Probability and RiskCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, S. J. 2001
Paizes, A.A Closer Look at the Presumption of Innocence in our Constitution: What is an Accused Presumed to be Innocent 1998 11 South African Journal of Criminal JusticeGoogle Scholar
Simester, A. P.Appraising Strict LiabilityOxford University Press 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadros, V.Tierney, S.The Presumption of Innocence and the Human Rights Act 2004 67 Modern Law ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffries, J. C.Stephan, P. B.Defences, Presumptions and the Burden of Proof of Criminal Law 1979 88 Yale Law JournalCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadros, V.Rethinking the Presumption of Innocence 2007 1 Criminal Law and PhilosophyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J.An Essay Concerning Human UnderstandingNew YorkDover 1959Google Scholar
Shapiro, B. J.Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probable Cause: Historical Perspectives in the Anglo-American Law of EvidenceBerkeleyCalifornia University Press 1991 21Google Scholar
Damaška, M.Evidence Law AdriftNew HavenYale University Press 1997 21Google Scholar
Shapiro, 1844
Mittermaier, C. J. A.Erfahrungen über die Wirksamkeit der Schwurgericht in Europa und Amerika, über Ihre Mangel und AbhülfeErlangenF. Elke 1865 137Google Scholar
Langbein, J. H.Comparative Criminal Procedure: GermanySt PaulWest 1977Google Scholar
Seiler, S.StrafprozeßrechtViennaWUV Universitätsverlag 2009Google Scholar
Wohlers, W.Art. 10Kommentar zur Schweizerischen StrafprozessordnungZurichSchulthess 2010Google Scholar
Soyer, J.-C.Droit pénal et procédure pénaleLGDJ 2008Google Scholar
Jackson, J.Evidence: Legal PerspectiveHandbook of Psychology in Legal ContextsChichesterJohn Wiley 1999Google Scholar
Allen, R. J.Rationality and Accuracy in the Criminal Process: A Discordant Note on the Harmonizing of the Justices’ Views on Burdens of Persuasion in Criminal Cases 1983 74 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, C.Preponderance of Evidence versus Intime Conviction: A Behavioural Perspective on a Conflict between American and Continental European LawBonnWorking Paper Series of the Max Planck Institut for Research on Collective Goods 2008Google Scholar
Redmayne, M.Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation 1999 62 Modern Law Review167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlan, J. 1970
Twining, W.Evidence and Legal Theory 1984 47 Modern Law Review261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nance, D.Allocating the Risk of Error: Its Role in the Theory of Evidence Law 2007 13 Legal Theory129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twining, W.Theories of Evidence: Bentham and WigmoreLondonWeidenfeld & Nicolson 1985 96Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D.Theories of Truth Finding in Criminal Procedure: An Evolutionary Approach 1988 10 Cardozo Law Review475Google Scholar
Goldman, A.Knowledge in a Social WorldOxford University Press 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boston University Law ReviewSymposium: Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence 1986 66 Boston University Law Review377Google Scholar
Tillers, P.Green, E. D.Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence: The Use and Limits of BayesianismDordrechtMartinus Nijhoff 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillers, P.Decision and Inference in Litigation 1991 13 Cardozo Law Review253Google Scholar
Allen, R.Redmayne, M.Bayesianism and Juridical Proof 1997 1 International Journal of Evidence & ProofGoogle Scholar
Allen, R.Roberts, P.Special Issue on the Reference Class Problem 2007 11 International Journal of Evidence & Proof243Google Scholar
Langbein, J. H.The Origins of Adversary Criminal TrialOxford University Press 2003 179Google Scholar
Little, R.Addressing the Evidentiary Sources of Wrongful Convictions: Categorical Exclusion of Evidence in Capital Statutes 2008 37 Southwestern University Law Review965Google Scholar
Weinstein, J. B.Dewsbury, I.Comment on the Meaning of “Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt 2006 5 Law, Probability & Risk167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L. J.The Role of Evidential Weight in Criminal Proof 1986 66 Boston University Law Review635Google Scholar
Allen, R. J.The Narrative Fallacy, the Relative Plausibility Theory and a Theory of the Trial 2006 3 International Commentary on EvidenceCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A.Pre-Trial Defence Rights and the Fair Use of Eyewitness Identification Procedures 2008 71 Modern Law ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGoldrick, D.The Human Rights CommitteeOxfordClarendon 1991 419Google Scholar
Weissbrodt, D.The Right to a Fair TrialThe HagueKluwer 2001 18Google Scholar
Emmerson, B.Ashworth, A.Macdonald, A.Human Rights and Criminal JusticeLondonSweet & Maxwell 2007Google Scholar
Dennis, I.Reverse Onuses and the Presumption of Innocence: In Search of Principle 2005 Criminal Law Review 901Google Scholar
Jackson, J.Quinn, K 2005
1997
Moisidis, C.Criminal DiscoverySydneySydney Institute of Criminology 2008Google Scholar
Stumer, A.The Presumption of Innocence: Evidential and Human Rights PerspectivesHartOxford 2010Google Scholar
1989
1990
Ashworth, A.Human Rights, Serious Crime and Criminal ProcedureLondonSweet & Maxwell 2002 17Google Scholar
Ashworth, ABlake, M. 1996
Ashworth, A. 2005
Roberts, P.(Un)grateful Comments on Six Commentaries 2007 5 International Commentary on EvidenceCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidmar, N.Pretrial Publicity in Canada: A Comparative Perspective on the Criminal Jury 1996 79 JudicatureGoogle Scholar
Vidmar, N.World Jury SystemsOxford University Press 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, C. M.Jury Bias and the European Convention on Human Rights: A Well Kept Secret 2004 Criminal Law Review 998 1007Google Scholar
2001
Volk, K.Forensic Expertise and the Law of Evidence in GermanyForensic Expertise and the Law of EvidenceAmsterdamRoyal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 1993 37Google Scholar
van Kampen, P. T. C.Expert Evidence Compared: Rules and Practices in the Dutch and American Criminal Justice SystemAntwerpen and GroningenIntersentia Rechswetenschappen 1998 6Google Scholar
Harris, D. J.O’Boyle, M.Bates, E. P.Buckley, C. M.Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human RightsOxford University Press 2009Google Scholar
1974
Heffernan, L.Imwinkelried, E. J.The Accused's Constitutional Right to Introduce Critical, Demonstrably Reliable Exculpatory Evidence 2006 40 Irish Jurist111Google Scholar
Raeder, M. S.Litigating Sex Crimes in the United States: Has the Last Decade made any Difference 2009 6 International Commentary on EvidenceCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J.Doran, S.Judge without Jury: Diplock Trials in the Adversary SystemOxfordClarendon 1995Google Scholar
Smith, J. C. 1988

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×