The Presumption of Guilt
| Published date | 01 April 1960 |
| Date | 01 April 1960 |
| Author | J. H. Wainwright |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6003300206 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
POLICE
CONSfABLE
J. H. WAINWRIGHT, LL.B.
West Riding Constabulary
The
Presumption
of
Guilt
THE REPORT of the Tucker Committee (Cmd. 479) was recently
published to a waiting world, and a vague decision was reached in
the drawn-out battle between "The Freedom of the Press" and the
sanctity of "The Presumption of Innocence." Hearings in camera
were frowned upon, but a recommendation was made that only the
barest details, i.e. the identities of the Court, of the accused, the
legal representatives and the charge, should be published whenever,
committal proceedings are reported . . . otherwise newspaper
reports might prejudice prospective jurors and "The Presumption
of Innocence" be thus destroyed.
The members of the Tucker Committee undoubtedly did all
that was asked of them but they did not include in their considera-
tions the full impact which a modem Police Force has made upon
English Criminal Law. From their conclusions, the reader might
believe that the greatest enemy to "The Presumption of Innocence"
is the newspaper report of summary proceedings. But, while
it
must be recognised that newspaper reports may be influential,
there is a stronger factor which the Committee did not
mention-
the strongest factor, indeed, of all.
If
we measure the decline of "The Presumption of Innocence"
by means of words used by judges when addressing juries. it is
possible to follow the slow undermining of the importance of that
presumption with the establishment of. and improvement in. modern
police methods.
In the early 19th century, before the creation of the Police
Service. as we know it today, "The Presumption of Innocence"
was a pillar of strength in the Criminal Courts. Judges went to
great lengths to impress its importance upon juries. In 1823. for
example. Holroyd, J., suggested that a gradation of criminality
called for a corresponding gradation of the presumption. and said:
"The greater the crime. the stronger the proof required for the
purpose of conviction." R. v. Hobson (1823). l.Lew. C.C.261. This
is a somewhat dangerous doctrine which, logically, leaves "petty
offences" needing little or no proof of either commission or guilt.
Some years later. however, R. v. Manning
'(1849).
30.C.C.C. Sess.
Pap. established that. in fact, there is an automatic presumption
against a crime even having been committed. and. in that case.
Lord Chief Baron Pollock (referring to the rebuttal of
"The
Pre-
104
April-June
1960
To continue reading
Request your trial