<p><font size="3"> <p>In South Africa, as in most jurisdictions, the presumption of innocence is a guaranteed constitutional right. The rationale of the presumption lies in the protection which it offers, since a person charged with a criminal offence stands to lose dearly in personal liberty, in social life and psychological well-being. The presumption is, therefore, a pivotal element of a culture of democracy and human rights. This study is prompted by the realisation that the presumption of innocence, which ought to constitute one of the most fundamental rights in any criminal justice system, is being eroded steadily in South Africa. In this regard, a significant area of concern is the current bail laws which, in my estimation, make a big dent into the right to be presumed innocent. The bail laws are part of government&rsquo / s policies directed at fighting crime. However, the pre-occupation with crime control measures threatens to reverse the hard-won rights of the accused and threatens to undermine individual liberty. Also, these measures are incompatible with the constitutional commitment to a culture of human rights.</p> </font></p>

<p><font size="3"> <p>In South Africa, as in most jurisdictions, the presumption of innocence is a guaranteed constitutional right. The rationale of the presumption lies in the protection which it offers, since a person charged with a criminal offence stands to lose dearly in personal liberty, in social life and psychological well-being. The presumption is, therefore, a pivotal element of a culture of democracy and human rights. This study is prompted by the realisation that the presumption of innocence, which ought to constitute one of the most fundamental rights in any criminal justice system, is being eroded steadily in South Africa. In this regard, a significant area of concern is the current bail laws which, in my estimation, make a big dent into the right to be presumed innocent. The bail laws are part of government&rsquo / s policies directed at fighting crime. However, the pre-occupation with crime control measures threatens to reverse the hard-won rights of the accused and threatens to undermine individual liberty. Also, these measures are incompatible with the constitutional commitment to a culture of human rights.</p> </font></p>

Magister Legum - LLM / In South Africa, as in most jurisdictions, the presumption of innocence is a guaranteed constitutional right. The rationale of the presumption lies in the protection which it offers, since a person charged with a criminal offence stands to lose dearly in personal liberty, in social life and psychological well-being. The presumption is, therefore, a pivotal element of a culture of democracy and human rights. This study is prompted by the realisation that the presumption of innocence, which ought to constitute one of the most fundamental rights in any criminal justice system, is being eroded steadily in South Africa. In this regard, a significant area of concern is the current bail laws which, in my estimation, make a big dent into the right to be presumed innocent. The bail laws are part of government’s policies directed at fighting crime. However, the pre-occupation with crime control measures threatens to reverse the hard-won rights of the accused and threatens to undermine individual liberty. Also, these measures are incompatible with the constitutional commitment to a culture of human rights.

Magister Legum - LLM / This paper attempts a comprehensive analysis of the offence of illicit enrichment in Zambia. It focuses on how the offence fits into the broader legislative framework in Zambia. More importantly, the paper addresses aspects of the offence related to the presumption ofinnocence, the protection against self-incrimination and the presumption of legality in the light of the Zambian Constitution to determine whether the concerns raised are legitimate. Also, considering the potential effectiveness of criminalising illicit enrichment by public officials, this study investigates whether the law in Zambia can be implemented to balance the constitutional rights of the accused and the right of society to recover illicitly obtained wealth. Finally, the research seeks to determine the possible challenges of implementing and prosecuting the offence, and its efficacy in the fight against corruption in Zambia.

Nekaltumo prezumpcija – pamatinis ir visuotinai pripažįstamas baudžiamosios teisės principas, įtvirtintas tarptautiniuose teisės tiek nacionaliniuose teisės aktuose. Šio principo postulatas reikalauja asmenį laikyti nekaltu, jei neįrodoma priešingai ir suponuoja būtinų procesinių taisyklių laikymąsi nustatant tam tikras proceso dalyvių teises ir pareigas. Tačiau nekaltumo prezumpcijos principas turi tam tikrų prieštaravimų, kurių esminis yra tai, kad baudžiamajame procese greta nekaltumo prezumpcijos egzistuoja jos antipodas - kaltumo prezumpcija. Jei tokios nebūtų, būtų neįmanomą prieš asmenį pradėti baudžiamąjį procesą ir taikyti jam procesines prievartos priemones. Vadinasi nekaltumo prezumpcija nėra ir negali būti suabsoliutinama baudžiamajame procese, tačiau visgi ji būtina kaip asmens teisių garantas. Šiuolaikinėje baudžiamojoje teisėje, nors ir suvokiama nekaltumo prezumpcijos svarba žmogaus teisių užtikrinimo kontekste ir vienų mokslininkų laikoma objektyvia ir visuotinai privaloma teisine nuostata, visgi yra manančių, kad nekaltumo prezumpcija yra viso labo tik fikcija, neturinti praktinės reikšmės. Be to nekaltumo prezumpcija nebegalioja tik nuo to momento kai įsiteisėja kaltumą konstatuojantis teismo nuosprendis. Vadinasi kol vyksta ikiteisminis tyrimas, ar teismo procesas, daugelis aplinkybių dar nėra pilnutinai ištirtos, taigi nesibaigus teisminiam nagrinėjimui išlieka didėlė tikimybė nekaltai apkaltinti asmenį. Todėl praktikoje dažnai kyla nekaltumo prezumpcijos... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The presumption of innocence is the fundamental and general principle in the criminal law which is recognized both: internationally and nationally. The presumption of innocence - is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. This principle implies that there should be the certain and strict rules followed in the process while settling the rights and obligations of the participants of the criminal procedures. However this principle has some contradictions with other principles. The essential contradiction is with the presumption of guilt. Without the presumption of guilt there would be impossible to start the criminal proceedings and to impose coercive measures against any person. So the presumption of innocence is not and can not be considered as absolute principle, but the one which guarantees the implementation of certain rights of the person in criminal proceedings. Even though in modern criminal law the importance of the presumption of innocence to ensure human rights is realized and principle is considered as universally binding legal provision by many researchers, some researches express the opinion that presumption of innocence is pure fiction and that it has no practical significance. The presumption of innocence proceeds until someone is found guilty by final and valid court decision. Taking into the consideration mentioned above during the pre-trial investigation or during the trial many factors have not yet been fully explored and... [to full text]

This thesis examines the processes the American and Norwegian press go through when identifying (or not) private citizens who are suspected of or arrested for a crime. Four central principles are explored in detail and elaborated upon as they relate to the press and individuals in the criminal justice system: the public's right to know, the right to privacy, protection of reputation, and presumption of innocence. Three Norwegian newspaper editors and an independent consultant to the Norwegian Institute of Journalism elaborated on how identification of criminal suspects is determined in Norway. The Norwegian case study provides an alternative approach to identification. Both legal and ethics solutions are proposed as a way to help protect the privacy, reputation, and presumption of innocence of private individuals suspected of or arrested for a crime but without unconstitutionally intruding on press freedom.

O reconhecimento da presunção de inocência não se mostra incompatível com a admissão da prisão e de outras medidas de caráter pessoal no curso da persecução penal. Assim como os demais direitos fundamentais, a presunção de inocência não se mostra absoluta ou insuscetível de restrições. O ordenamento jurídico brasileiro admite intervenções legítimas no âmbito de proteção da presunção de inocência, submetendo-as ao controle da proporcionalidade e do conteúdo essencial dos direitos fundamentais. A proporcionalidade serve como limite das intervenções e desdobra-se nos pressupostos, requisitos extrínsecos e requisitos intrínsecos já explorados. O descumprimento de qualquer destes pontos revela a desobediência à regra da proporcionalidade e, com isto, o caráter ilegítimo da intervenção no âmbito de proteção da presunção de inocência. Esta análise pode ocorrer tanto da perspectiva abstrata, examinando-se a previsão normativa, como da perspectiva concreta, analisando a aplicação e a execução da norma / The recognition of the presumption of innocence is inconsistent with the admission of the prison and other measures of personal character in the course of criminal prosecution. Like other fundamental rights, the presumption of innocence does not show absolute and subject to no restrictions. The Brazilian legal system admits intervention legitimate in the context of protection of the presumption of innocence, places them under the control of proportionality and the essential content of fundamental rights. Proportionality serves as a limit of interventions and unfolds in the assumptions, requirements extrinsic and intrinsic requirements already explored. The breach of any of these seven elements reveals the disobedience to the rule of proportionality and, thus, the illegitimate nature of the intervention under protection of the presumption of innocence. This analysis can occur from both the abstract perspective, examining the legislative provision, as the concrete perspective, examining the implementation and enforcement of the standard.

O reconhecimento da presunção de inocência não se mostra incompatível com a admissão da prisão e de outras medidas de caráter pessoal no curso da persecução penal. Assim como os demais direitos fundamentais, a presunção de inocência não se mostra absoluta ou insuscetível de restrições. O ordenamento jurídico brasileiro admite intervenções legítimas no âmbito de proteção da presunção de inocência, submetendo-as ao controle da proporcionalidade e do conteúdo essencial dos direitos fundamentais. A proporcionalidade serve como limite das intervenções e desdobra-se nos pressupostos, requisitos extrínsecos e requisitos intrínsecos já explorados. O descumprimento de qualquer destes pontos revela a desobediência à regra da proporcionalidade e, com isto, o caráter ilegítimo da intervenção no âmbito de proteção da presunção de inocência. Esta análise pode ocorrer tanto da perspectiva abstrata, examinando-se a previsão normativa, como da perspectiva concreta, analisando a aplicação e a execução da norma / The recognition of the presumption of innocence is inconsistent with the admission of the prison and other measures of personal character in the course of criminal prosecution. Like other fundamental rights, the presumption of innocence does not show absolute and subject to no restrictions. The Brazilian legal system admits intervention legitimate in the context of protection of the presumption of innocence, places them under the control of proportionality and the essential content of fundamental rights. Proportionality serves as a limit of interventions and unfolds in the assumptions, requirements extrinsic and intrinsic requirements already explored. The breach of any of these seven elements reveals the disobedience to the rule of proportionality and, thus, the illegitimate nature of the intervention under protection of the presumption of innocence. This analysis can occur from both the abstract perspective, examining the legislative provision, as the concrete perspective, examining the implementation and enforcement of the standard.

The two principles of ¡§secret investigation¡¨ and ¡§freedom of the press¡¨ are respectively the foundations of ¡§presumption of innocence,¡¨ a basic human right, and ¡§the right to know,¡¨ one of the basic citizen rights. The former principle guards against any sentence of suspects unreivewed by the juridical system and protects the reputation, privacy and other legal rights of all the related parties in the case. The latter are the fourth power apart from the executive, legislative and judicial branches. It allows for strict monitoring of the governmental performance and, therefore, prevents the government from abusing its powers. In practice, these two principles are rather complicatedly connected. This study begins by exploring the definition of investigation and, discussing the role and function of the police in the investigation process, and then introducing the basic ideas of the secret investigation principle. As for the freedom of the press, the study starts by explaining its meaning and introduces related theories, legal definition, protection and limitation. The study then continues with a discussion of press autonomy and information source of the press. At the end, the study provides analysis of the interviews to find out conflict and/or cooperation between the police and the media. The question raised in this study is ¡§How do the police respond to the requirements of the press freedom and protect the right to know without violating any legal regulation?¡¨ The methodology of this study is literature review of official documents and in-depth interview. The data collected from the literature review were compiled and rewritten into sixteen situation analysis tools, which were then reorganized into ten simulation cases. The cases were used as issue analysis tools in the in-depth interviews with the selected journalists and investigation squad chiefs. In the interview, the squad chiefs were asked what considerations or reactions they would have in each simulation case. The journalists were also asked what strategies or perspectives they would adopt in reporting each case. Comparisons were made to find out the differences and similarities between the squad chiefs and journalists in considering the same case so as to achieve maximum agreement between both sides under the premise of not breach any of the existing legal requirements. The study reached the following four conclusions: (1) the police should be educated about which action would violate the principle of secret investigation and what legal or administrative liability would ensue; (2) the police should understand the needs of the media and provide journalists with information within reasonable scope for media coverage; (3) the police should use assistance of devices and skills of related technologies; (4) finally, the government should cooperate with the media to make laws that can effectively regulate related issues.

Text in Afrikaans / Die sogenaamde vermoede van onskuld is via die Engelse Reg in ons reg oorgeneem en tot konstitusionele status verhoog met die daarstelling van artikel 25(3)(c) van die Grondwet, No. 200 van 1993. Hierdie reg om onskuldig geag te word en die gepaardgaande swygreg, wat hier kortliks aangeraak word, kan egter aan beperking onderhewig wees soos bepaal deur artikel 33 van die Grondwet. Die beginsels soos ontwikkel in Kanada en Amerika word ondersoek. Die slotsom waartoe geraak word is dat, alhoewel historiese en ander verskille deurgaans voor oe gehou sal moet word, die regspraak in genoemde jurisdiksies, en meer spesifiek Kanada, 'n groat rol sal speel by die inhoud wat die SuidA: frik:aanse howe, in die konteks van statutere vermoedens, aan die konstitusionele reg om onskuldig geag te word, sal gee. / The so-called presumption of innocence has been inherited from the English common law and awarded constitutional status by the introduction of section 25(3)(c) ofthe Constitution, Act 200 ofl993. This right to be presumed innocent and the accompanying right to remain silent, which is briefly touched upon, are however not absolute and can be subject to limitation as provided for by section 33 ofthe Constitution. The principles, as they have been developed in Canada and America, are investigated. The conclusion which is drawn is that, despite historical and other differences, it can be expected that foreign jurisprudence, particularly that of Canada, will play a major role in the content that will be given by the South African courts to the right to be presumed innocent in the context of statutory presumptions. / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL. M.