Innocent OR NOT.

Govt defends A-G's stand
Law Minister reiterates that 'not guilty in law' does not mean 'innocent'
By K.C.Vijayan, Law Correspondent

A MAN is charged with a crime. After a trial, he is acquitted and goes free. Does that mean he is innocent?
Not necessarily.

Witnesses may have changed their evidence, or a technicality may have got in the way. What this amounts to: The prosecution is unable to convince the judge that the man had done the deed.

And once there is any reasonable doubt as to an accused's guilt, duty requires that the judge acquit him.

Law Minister K. Shanmugam told Parliament yesterday: 'It is entirely possible for a person to have committed acts which amount to a crime and yet, there may be no conviction. I emphasise this: No serious lawyer will question this possibility.'

He was responding to two lawyer-MPs, who wanted him to clarify the position of the Attorney-General on the subject of acquittals. The issue has been up in the air since mid-May, when Attorney-General Walter Woon stated that an acquitted person may be 'not guilty' in law, but 'guilty' in fact.

Two months later, Appeal Court Judge V. K. Rajah weighed in on the issue. He did not refer to what the Attorney-General said, but made it clear that such comments could undermine confidence in the courts' verdicts and the criminal justice system, which is based on the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Not so, said Mr Shanmugam.

He described the presumption of innocence as an 'important and fundamental principle' which the Government is 'absolutely committed to upholding'.

'There is no intention to question or qualify that principle in any way. I am surprised that any doubt should at all have arisen about this.'

The Government has no intention of encroaching on the functions of the courts either, he added. 'It is for the courts, and the courts alone, to exercise judicial power and decide the question of guilt, in a trial.'

The Attorney-General's position is similar to that of his predecessor, Mr Chan Sek Keong, now the Chief Justice, Mr Shanmugam said.

CJ Chan had pointed out in a lecture in 1996 that the trial process was designed to prove guilt, not innocence.

Quoting from the lecture, Mr Shanmugam reported the then Attorney-General as saying that the presumption of innocence amounts to saying an accused person is 'legally innocent'.

'It is simply an expression that in a criminal trial, the prosecution is obliged to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,' said Mr Shanmugam.

The system in places such as England and Scotland is similar. In fact, Scotland has a third verdict - 'not proven' - besides 'guilty' and 'not guilty'. While 'not guilty' is a positive declaration of innocence, 'not proven' implies that guilt has not been conclusively proven.

Even as he stuck to his guns, Mr Shanmugam cautioned against jumping the other way. 'Just as a person acquitted may not necessarily be innocent, he may well also be, in fact, innocent.'

Lawyers The Straits Times contacted said the concepts of legal innocence and factual guilt have always been there, and agreed with Mr Shanmugam that accused persons may sometimes go free.

Association of Criminal Lawyers Singapore president Subhas Anandan said he had defended clients in the past who were acquitted for one reason or other, but whom he felt were guilty in fact.

'An accused person is not going to bother if he is factually guilty. All he wants is to be be able to walk away free.'

The reverse also applies: where a person is factually innocent but legally guilty. 'This happens where the accused wants to plead guilty to a lesser charge and end the case... because his interest is to walk away as quickly as possible.'