Law of Evidence: Golden Thread Rule - Essay Example

? Law of Evidence The modern criminal justice system has been developed in such a way as it has come to embrace the opinions of those individuals, mostly politicians, whose main purpose is to pressure it into making quick judgments without thoroughly considering all the evidence at hand. This has created a situation where one of the oldest principles of the English laws, that an accused individuals is considered innocent until proven guilty, has come to be flaunted at the expense of making swift decisions.1 The credibility of many of the court decisions have therefore come to be questioned because the fact remains that it is the duty of the prosecution to ensure that it works towards finding the accused individual either guilty or innocent. This has to be done through the finding of credible evidence that proves beyond doubt that the accused person is indeed guilty. The decisions that have been made in recent years where there has been no sufficient proof from the prosecution to show that the accused individual is guilty of the crime committed have been influenced by the one golden thread rule. While this rule is still one of the most paramount in the justice system, it has come to be put aside in many cases because of the fact that many of the courts have been under immense pressure to get rid of a many cases as possible in the shortest time available. This has ensured that the quality of the evidence provided in court before a verdict was reached has been eroded. Because of this, it can be said that some of the individuals who have gone through the English justice system and have been found guilty may indeed have been sentenced falsely. If this is the case, then the gravest violation of justice by the courts may have taken place and more needs to be done to ensure that such gaps in the criminal justice system are sealed to help boost public confidence in it. As has been stated above, many of the judges who are in charge of the criminal justice system today define justice according to what recent politicians have sought to impose upon the criminal justice system. From the time of the Auld Report criminal justice is supposed no longer to be a contest between the prosecution between the prosecution and the defence to determine whether the accused is guilty or not. Instead, it has been declared that it is a means through which the truth can be found, despite the fact that the truth is something that can be considered to be relative. The truth according to one individual may not necessarily be so to another and this has led to the almost total disregard for the correct and thorough examination of the evidence at hand. Judges, who are supposed to be impartial referees, have come to be directly involved in the cases because of the pressure that has been put on them to show as many results as possible; disregarding the fact that the judges have to be impartial in order to perform best. One of the biggest failures of the criminal justice system has been the absolute absence of any meaningful sanction for its failure to meet schedules.2 In addition, this lack of sanction also extends to the failure to make proper disclosure and to ensure that all the witnesses named appear at court. One would go as far as to state that the definition of finding the truth, according to the criminal justice system is not the seeking of the answers concerning the case, but has in reality turned into a bid to ensure the securing of a conviction as speedily and as cheaply as possible. The need for speed as well as the reduction of the expenses of the trials, while seen as being economical is among the reasons why the criminal justice system is failing to deliver justice as it should. An example of this scenario is the Woolmington case where at the trial the judge informed the jury that if it was convinced that Woolmington killed his wife, then it was up to Woolmington himself to convince the jury that the shooting was an accident. When Woolmington gave evidence, he admitted to shooting his wife but said that he had not meant to do it. The jury however was not persuaded that it was an accident and because of this, he was established to have been culpable and sentenced to death. The need for speed in the criminal justice system has led to instances where the courts are often very reluctant to take on the extra expenditure that may in the end, prove that the accused individual is indeed innocent.3 Even such simple requests as the careful examination of DNA evidence has led to situations where the advocates for the individuals involved have had to jump through many hurdles in order to achieve. The fast tracking of cases has made it extremely difficult for the advocates to have the time needed to ensure that they organize themselves properly to defend their clients in court. In fact, in order for the defence to reach that stage it often has to face down the accusations that that are causing delays and increasing the cost of the case. However, if the defence does not face down the accusations made against it, then it is most likely that a gross miscarriage of justice may take place against their client. The need to ensure a swift trial and conviction has made it the norm in many criminal cases for the individuals accused to be convicted either based on unsustainable DNA “evidence” or has been induced to plead guilty.4 Plenty of effort has been devoted to the so-called cutting out of unnecessary delays and compelling what has been termed as active case management. It has been found that most of the evidence that is presented in court tends to be those that were collected by the police and because the latter has been proven to be always on the side of the prosecution, it can be said that most of the evidence is often biased against the accused. The need to have a swift trial does not often give the defence enough time to not only prepare for the case but it also ensures that it is not able to collect evidence of its own to refute the accusations made against their client. Most of the police case summaries, which are presented, in court by the prosecution tend to be assertions that are made about “admissions” which do not often show up when the tapes of the interviews are heard in court. There have in fact, been times when these police summaries have worked towards the absolution of the accused from any guilt because instead of showing the guilt, they have ended showing that the individual is in fact innocent.5 The Woolmington case is one of the most famous cases where the burden of proof lay in the hands of the prosecution yet despite this, the prosecution failed to prove the said guilt. This case was so pivotal in the development of the one golden thread rule that it was further commemorated by John Mortimor’s creation, Horace Rumpole, who never tired of quoting from the leading judgment that was delivered by Viscount Sankey. Viscount Sankey in his statement declared that throughout the network of the criminal law one golden thread is at all times to be seen, that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to demonstrate the guilt. However, if at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a rational reservation the prosecution has not made out the case and the respondent is allowed to an acquittal. He further states that it does not matter what the charge is or where the trial is taking place, because the rule that the prosecution must provide evidence of the guilt of the accused is an element of the common law and no endeavour to cut it down can be entertained. It is a fact that when considering any criminal case where there is no evidence to prove guilt beyond any doubt, the one golden thread rule must be applied. When this rule is considered, it will be found that the issue of whether the accused is guilty or not is a matter in which the individual must be given the benefit of the doubt. This is because of two extremely significant factors as elaborated by the above rule and the first of these is that when the crime took place, there was no one around to see exactly what took place, and the only person who was there is the one who has been accused of committing the crime. This denotes that the only person whose word can be taken concerning the matter is that of the accused. Secondly, the one golden thread rule states that the individual who has been accused of committing the crime is innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt and it is a fact that the prosecution has to come up with all the necessary evidence to prove it. If the prosecution does not have the evidence to prove the accused guilty, then the court has no choice but to release the latter.6 Such a case scenario is the 1935 Woolmington vs Director of Public Prosecutions where Woolmington told the police that his intention was to show his estranged wife a gun and threaten to kill himself if she did not return home. The wife’s aunt who was washing when she heard Reginald speaking to her niece and later, she heard a gunshot and by the time she got to her niece, that latter was dead. Woolmington claimed to have been in love with his wife and that her death was a terrible accident that took place when the gun went off as he brought it out to show her as he had intended. This case is perhaps one of those that require the application of the one golden thread rule because there was no one present to see exactly what transpired between Woolmington and his wife.7 It is therefore the responsibility of the prosecution, not the defence, to prove the guilt of the accused; a requirement which seems to have been discarded in most criminal cases in recent times. Moreover, in the case where the individual accused was the only witness around, it is imperative for the court to listen to his version of the story and this should form a significant part of the oral evidence of the case.8 The development of the evidence against the accused should be done through the thorough investigation of all the circumstances leading to the crime and because of the advanced methods of evidence collection; it should be easy enough for the court to determine whether the accused is guilty. In order to do this however, it is necessary for the court to take time and spare no cost because to do otherwise would be an injustice. The criminal justice system has the duty of ensuring that all the individuals accused have a fair trial because to do otherwise would be a violation of their basic rights. The development of the evidence against individuals should not only rely on that which has been got from the police, but also that from the court as well. The court and the judge in particular, are mandated to listen to both sides of the argument impartially because to do otherwise would be to openly show bias, a thing that it cannot afford to do. This mandate has, however not been faithfully carried out especially in recent years where more importance is put in the swift conclusion of cases at the expense of the meting out of justice. The fact that the criminal justice system has chosen the path towards the swift and cost saving means of handling cases, it has come to the point where the individuals accused have been considered guilty even before the case begins. In order to enforce justice, it has become necessary for the justice system to be reminded that justice is the most important thing and not the swift completion of cases.9 Otherwise, there might reach a point where cases might only be done for show, as was done in the Soviet Union, where individuals were put through sham trials and sentenced without any credible evidence being presented against them. The rationale for this is to ensure that the provisions of the one golden thread are put into effect with little or no disagreements concerning the terms, which the accused has been released. The need for the further development of this rule is also to ensure that the police do their jobs by collecting and bringing to court proper evidence against those individuals that are accused of crime. The police should no longer get evidence from the accused through coercion and if there is any indication of coercion, then it would be necessary for the court to disregard such evidence.10 The role of the police should be to conduct investigations in an impartial manner and not to determine the guilt of the individuals who they accuse of committing a crime. Similarly, it is the duty of the prosecution to analyse carefully the evidence that has been brought to it by the police so that it does not end up presenting in court evidence that it incorrect. The one golden thread should always be put into use so that innocent individuals do not end up being convicted either for crimes they did not commit or did not intend to commit. This is the reason why after Woolmington appealed unsuccessfully at first and eventually his case came before the House of Lords, he was acquitted of the crime he was accused of committing. In conclusion, it can be said that the one golden thread rule has largely succeeded in ensuring that the English criminal justice system remains credible. It has been seen that most of the statutes that are used in England are based on the common law and because of this, the application of the one golden thread rule ensures that those individuals who are innocent are protected from being sentenced over crimes that thy did not intentionally commit. Furthermore, this rule has helped to guarantee the human rights of the English people because it has enabled them to become more aware of them. It has encouraged them to put pressure on the government to ensure that it adjusts legislation, which is in contravention with the one golden thread. The fact that the one golden thread rule is applied in various aspects of the English criminal justice system has ensured that the rights of individuals are protected and in the process, there has developed some hope for the individuals who would otherwise be falsely accused of crimes they did not commit. The one golden thread has to be internalised in the English legal system because of the implementation of the Human Rights Act, which has now a permanent part of it. References Appleby, Michael. Guilty until proved innocent? The Safety & Health Practitioner. 2008, 26, (3) (03): 19-19,4. Black, Ann. COURT CEREMONIES, RITUAL AND SYMBOLISM: How Islamic law and English common law are conceptualized and apply to an unlawful killing. Griffith Law Review 2012, 21, (2): 499-532. Cassell, Paul G. The guilty and the "innocent': An examination of alleged cases of wrongful conviction from false confessions. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 1999, 22, (2) (Spring): 523-603. Duff, Antony, R. Strict responsibility, moral and criminal. Journal of Value Inquiry. 2009. 43, (3): 295-313. Gless, Sabine. Covering the entire English criminal justice system. Criminal Law Forum, 2003. 14, (1): 101-101. Green, Michael. Are verdicts credible? Is it time to consider the truth about lies? The Liverpool Law Review. 2012. 33, (2) (08): 159-170. Hamer, David. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND REVERSE BURDENS: A BALANCING ACT. The Cambridge Law Journal 2007, 66, (03): 142-171. Loewy, Arnold H. Systemic changes that could reduce the conviction of the innocent. Criminal Law Forum 2007, 18, (1): 137-149. Van Den Belt, Henk. Debating the precautionary principle: "guilty until proven innocent" or "innocent until proven guilty"? Plant Physiology 2003.132, (3) (07): 1122-6. Van den Belt, Henk and Bart Gremmen. Between precautionary principle and ''sound science'': Distributing the burdens of proof. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2002.15, (1): 103-122.    Read More