This discussion will concentrate on the ‘cornerstone principles’ of the right to a fair trial, namely: the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in relation to prevention of wrongful conviction. It will be argued in accordance with Sundby that these procedural features undeniably benefit the accused in the usual criminal procedure, as they operate to prevent wrongful conviction.
However, despite the importance of these integral principles in criminal law, following the September 11th attacks on the Twin Towers, the presumed threat to national security was so significant that it was able to outweigh the importance of these principles and their function to protect accused persons from wrongful conviction. In counteracting terrorism, a ‘dual system’ of criminal justice developed under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), as suspects were presumed guilty and the standard of proof was altered. The modification of these principles reveal protection from wrongful conviction was outweighed by security concerns.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Presumption of Innocence and Human Rights
3. The Impact of September 11th on Legal Principles
4. The Standard of Proof in Terrorist Cases
5. Security Concerns versus Protection from Wrongful Conviction
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
The primary objective of this paper is to examine the tension between national security measures and the fundamental legal principles of the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, specifically focusing on the UK's legislative responses to terrorism following the September 11th attacks.
- The role of the presumption of innocence in protecting against wrongful conviction.
- The impact of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001) on due process.
- The shift from traditional criminal standards to a "dual system" of justice.
- The socio-legal consequences of indefinite detention for suspected foreign terrorists.
Excerpt from the Book
The Modification of Principles reveal protection from wrongful conviction was outweighed by security concerns.
The presumption of innocence is a long standing intrinsic part of the right to a fair trial in criminal law, as it operates to ensure that ‘everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law’. The enshrinement of this principle in both domestic law and in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is illustrative of the importance of this human right, as it seeks to promote due process in the pursuit of justice by providing the accused with protection against wrongful conviction. According to Ashworth the rationale behind this is ‘a moral and political principle based on the shared conception that when an individual is deprived of their liberty there should be a good reason for doing so’, ie; guilt. The right to liberty is viewed as so fundamental to human beings that a deprivation of it is inherently punitive. The importance of protection against wrongful conviction lies in that it relates to the right to liberty, a fundamental right in a democracy. Therefore, where this protection is withdrawn it represents the erosion of democracy and a transition to an arbitrary state. This is evidenced by the international recognition and support given to the presumption of innocence.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the fundamental importance of the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof in preventing wrongful convictions within the criminal justice system.
2. The Presumption of Innocence and Human Rights: This section explores the legal and moral basis of the presumption of innocence, detailing its protection under domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. The Impact of September 11th on Legal Principles: This chapter analyzes how post-9/11 fear shifted the government's priorities, leading to the creation of a "dual system" of justice under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act.
4. The Standard of Proof in Terrorist Cases: This analysis examines how the stringent requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt was altered, effectively replacing it with a lower threshold based on suspicion.
5. Security Concerns versus Protection from Wrongful Conviction: This section discusses the real-world impact of indefinite detention, highlighting the conflict between national security interests and individual rights.
6. Conclusion: This final chapter synthesizes the argument that prioritizing security over fundamental legal rights has led to the punishment of individuals who have not been formally proven guilty, thereby eroding core democratic protections.
Keywords
Presumption of Innocence, Wrongful Conviction, Anti-Terrorism Act 2001, National Security, Human Rights, Fair Trial, Standard of Proof, Dual System of Justice, Indefinite Detention, Due Process, Terrorism, Criminal Procedure, Liberty, UK Law, Legislative Response
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research?
The paper examines how legal cornerstones such as the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt are undermined when national security concerns are prioritized.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The themes include criminal law theory, human rights, anti-terrorism legislation, the impact of post-9/11 policy, and the balance between state security and individual liberty.
What is the core research question?
The research investigates whether the protection of citizens against wrongful conviction is fundamentally compromised by the "dual system" of criminal justice implemented in response to terrorist threats.
Which scientific method is applied in this study?
This work employs a doctrinal legal analysis, examining statutes, case law, international conventions, and scholarly commentary to evaluate the shift in criminal justice standards.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the theoretical necessity of the presumption of innocence, the legislative history of the ATCSA (2001), the lowering of proof standards for terror suspects, and the consequences for individuals like Cerie Bulliviant.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
Key terms include Presumption of Innocence, Wrongful Conviction, Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, National Security, and Fair Trial.
How does the ATCSA (2001) differ from conventional criminal procedure?
The Act created a "dual system" that allowed for indefinite detention without trial, shifting the burden from proving guilt to relying on the Secretary of State's reasonable suspicion.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the state of democracy?
The author concludes that when protections against wrongful conviction are suspended for the sake of security, it signals an erosion of democratic values and a transition toward an arbitrary state.
What role does the European Convention on Human Rights play in this context?
The ECHR serves as a benchmark for fair trial rights, which the author argues are being circumvented or violated by domestic anti-terrorism policies in the UK.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Asharntay Kingston (Autor:in), 2016, Laws of evidence in the UK. Standards of proof, reasonable doubt and protection from wrongful conviction after ACTSA, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/349881
