Rethinking the presumption of innocence

This article is concerned with what constitutes interference with the presumption of innocence and what justifications there might be for such interference. It provides a defence of a theory of the presumption of innocence that suggests that the right is interfered with if the offence warrants conviction of defendants who are not the intended target of the offence. This thesis is defended against two alternative theories. It then considers what might justify interference with the presumption of innocence. It explores the idea that interference is justified if it is necessary in a democratic society and considers the presumption in relation to the aims of the criminal trial. It is concluded that no good grounds have been provided for interference with the right, and that the right should be regarded as inviolable.

The effect of ambiguous question wording on jurors’ presumption of innocence

ABSTRACT

Research suggests that jurors misunderstand the presumption of innocence. However, past studies have not asked participants to estimate the defendant’s probability of guilt, setting aside the fact of charge and indictment. We conduct two studies to explore the impact of this question wording on estimates of the probability of guilt/innocence by jury-eligible Mturk workers. In Experiment 1 (N?=?275), question wording (legal, factual and ambiguous) was varied within participants and revealed significantly higher estimates of innocence in response to the legal than the factual or ambiguously worded question. In Experiment 2 (N?=?303), question wording was manipulated between participants both before (prior) and after (posterior) the presentation of evidence. Prior estimates of guilt were significantly lower in the legal than factual or ambiguous conditions. Question wording also predicted posteriors, and these in turn predicted verdicts. These results suggest that imprecise wording may have contributed to concerns about jurors’ understanding of the presumption of innocence, highlighting the need for further research. Link to associated OSF page: [https://osf.io/ywuxr/?view_only=b2148ffd1f674e62b66d31ed6593e586].     

论刑事推定的合宪性审查

刑事推定不仅涉及实体法上犯罪构成要件的设置和程序法上证明责任的分配与承担,还涉及司法权力的重新配置,对其合宪性进行审查是亟待引起重视的一个新问题。推定的合宪性审查标准是多元的。无罪推定是现代刑事法的一项基本原则,是被告人应该享有的重要的宪法性权利,探讨推定的合宪性审查,必须审视推定与无罪推定之间的关系。     

论刑事推定的合宪性审查

刑事推定不仅涉及实体法上犯罪构成要件的设置和程序法上证明责任的分配与承担,还涉及司法权力的重新配置,对其合宪性进行审查是亟待引起重视的一个新问题。推定的合宪性审查标准是多元的。无罪推定是现代刑事法的一项基本原则,是被告人应该享有的重要的宪法性权利,探讨推定的合宪性审查,必须审视推定与无罪推定之间的关系。     

Privacy,surveillance, and the proportionality principle: The need for a method of assessing privacy implications of technologies used for surveillance

Developments in technology have created the possibility for law enforcement authorities to use for surveillance purposes devices that are in the hands or private premises of individuals (e.g. smart phones, GPS devices, smart meters, etc.). The extent to which these devices interfere with an individual's private sphere might differ. In the European Union, surveillance measures are considered lawful if they have been issued in conformity with the legal rules and the proportionality principle. Taking a fundamental rights approach, this paper focuses on the information needed for adopting proportionate decisions when authorizing the use for surveillance of devices that are not built for surveillance purposes. Since existing methods of privacy assessment of technologies do not offer the required information, this paper suggests the need for a new method of assessing privacy implications of technologies and devices which combines an assessment of privacy aspects with the different dimensions of surveillance.     

也论推定规则适用中的证明责任和证明标准——兼与何家弘教授商榷

中国现行法不仅存在转移“完整证明责任”的推定规则，也存在类似于美国法上仅转移“举证责任”的推定规则。在中国，对推定事实进行有效反驳的证明标准不应该是统一的“优势证据”标准，而应该根据诉讼类型、推定类型不同而有所区分。     

也论推定规则适用中的证明责任和证明标准——兼与何家弘教授商榷

中国现行法不仅存在转移完整证明责任的推定规则,也存在类似于美国法上仅转移举证责任的推定规则。在中国,对推定事实进行有效反驳的证明标准不应该是统一的优势证据标准,而应该根据诉讼类型、推定类型不同而有所区分。     

Guilt and Innocence in the Criminal Justice System: A Comment on R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The House of Lords upheld the Secretary of State's right to deny compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the ex gratia scheme to Mullen, whose conviction for conspiracy to cause explosions had been quashed by the Court of Appeal solely by reference to actions by the authorities (securing his illegal deportation to the UK) that constituted an abuse of process, without impugning the fairness of his trial or the accuracy of the verdict The note discusses the different judgments in the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal in terms of their implications for the respective roles of legal and political systems in determining guilt and innocence. In particular, the note explores the nature of the legal principle of the presumption of innocence as it operates in the context of successful appeals.     

犯罪故意认定的证据法学解读

实体法上广为讨论的犯罪故意认定问题,最终要在司法证明过程中进行.在罪过难辨的疑案中,裁判者应坚持无罪推定原则,作为区分故意与过失的最后一道屏障.对于故意这种“无法定义只能描述”的复杂心理现象,以实体法上的抽象概念去界定不如以证据法上直观的类型化判断来把握.故意“概念的类型化”,是以认识程度和意志程度之强度互补的弹性组合...     

挑战与回应:口供制度的重生——兼论律师法对侦查工作的影响

口供在证据价值上具有不可替代的作用,司法人员应该认真对待口供。从实证的角度,废除犯罪嫌疑人如实供述的义务,有利于建立口供的激励制度。口供制度的重要基石分别是口供的任意性和真实性,我国刑事诉讼应该建立告知制度和口供补强标准。对待口供,既要反对口供无用论的"口供虚无主义",又要反对口供无法获得的"口供无奈主义"。合理的口供制度的建立,可以减轻司法机关口供举证责任的负担。犯罪嫌疑人(被告人)口供应成为量刑的评价因素。     

无罪推定原则的确立与口供制度的完善

无罪推定是被追诉者的一项基本权利,也是被追诉者各项诉讼权利的基础。在刑事诉讼中将无罪推定确立为指导刑事诉讼活动的基本准则,就是无罪推定原则。我国应当在刑事诉讼中彻底确立无罪推定原则。无罪推定及其引申的主要内容应当分为三个层次:证明责任、被追诉者的权利和对被追诉者的权利的保障。由于无罪推定假定被追诉者无罪,对控诉的举证责任应由控方承担,被追诉者不承担无罪的举证责任,所以,被追诉者就没有理由配合控方提供自己犯罪的证据,包括口供。我国刑事诉讼法关于"犯罪嫌疑人对侦查人员的提问,应当如实回答"的规定,违背了无罪推定关于被追诉者不应当承担举证或证明责任的基本精神,使得被追诉者负有帮助侦控方履行举证和证明的义务。这一规定实质上表明我国刑诉法要求被追诉者承担举证或证明责任。因此,从无罪推定的这一层面上说"应当如实回答"是不合理的,应当予以取消。     

The End of Innocence: Open Justice,Free Speech and Privacy in the Modern Constitution – Khuja (formerly PNM) v Times Newspapers Limited

This case note explores the issue of open justice considered by Khuja (formerly PNM) v Times Newspapers Limited in the Supreme Court and argues that the current law is confused and incoherent. Far from settling the debate, it is suggested that the decision further undermines some of the key assumptions underpinning the current approach, especially in the light of the compelling and humane minority judgment. This leaves the area ripe for reconsideration in general terms. This note challenges many of the formulaic slogans and rhetoric in previous case law as well as suggesting that the meaning of open justice has been lost in current discourse. After summarising the facts, this note sets out the majority and minority judgments, before analysing some of the conceptual difficulties raised – particularly those of open justice, privacy, presumption of innocence and freedom of speech.     

Modernization of European data protection law at a turning point

CLSR welcomes occasional comment pieces on issues of current importance in the law and technology field. In this note Dr Ulrich Wuermeling of Latham & Watkins LLP, Frankfurt offers a personal viewpoint on the EU data protection reform package.     

Security policies and the weakening of personal data protection in the European Union

In recent years, the reinforcement of security policies alongside the expansion of information systems for law enforcement and crime prevention entailed growing restrictions to personal data protection principles and procedural rights in the European Union. This paper seeks to elucidate this trend, while matching it with an EU institutional discourse based on balancing and proportionality. Indeed, EU institutions regularly present security measures and fundamental rights as somewhat symmetric values to be easily conciliated through balancing and proportionality. Considering the raising of the protection of personal data to the status of a fundamental right by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, its effect on a possible rebalancing of the values at stake is discussed. Yet, we conclude, for the time being, the potential for just and democratic solutions provided by the ideas of balancing and proportionality does not appear to be properly used.     

巨额财产来源不明罪证明责任实证分析-以100例司法裁判为研究样本

巨额财产来源不明罪证明责任的司法适用分歧,折射了关于证明责任和无罪推定之间关系认识的模糊不清。巨额财产来源不明罪中被告人应当承担的证明责任,不宜理解为“提供证据的责任”,而应阐释为“较大可能性”或“优势证据”标准的“说服责任”,这一结论的得出,是基于无罪推定原则的合理限制角度,充分考虑该罪立法目的以及在我国的司法适用情形,从比例原则的角度进行的正当性考量。     

论职业病诊断的医学循证与法律推定

不同于一般临床疾病的诊断,职业病诊断是归因诊断,兼具医学性、法律性的特点。《职业病防治法》第四十六条前两款对职业病诊断作出了原则性规定,其中第二款的法律推定体现了职业病诊断的立法价值取向。然而,职业病诊断标准并未高度契合法律推定条款,法律推定操作性欠佳,诊断实务中不同专家对这两款的各自作用和相互关系认识不一,法律推定的适用与否直接影响诊断结论和法律价值的个案实现。对职业病诊断中该两款的协调及法律推定的操作进行论述,以供参考。     

“不知法不免责”准则的历史考察

刑法中事实错误与法律错误分类的现代意义与罗马法无关。对“不知法不免责”准则的发展历史的考察表明,无论在大陆法的语境中,还是在普通法的语境中,现代的“不知法不免责”准则都建立在知法的推定的基础之上。知法的推定与近代以来国家权威的扩张与治理方式的理性化存在紧密联系。借助知法的推定,“不知法不免责”准则与责任主义在古典的刑法理论体系中得以自洽共存。在知法的推定动摇之后,为维护“不知法不免责”的传统立场,人们提出诸种新的理论根据,但这些根据无法使传统立场正当化。     

欧盟证券强制要约收购规则及其启示

以2004年5月20日生效的《欧盟要约收购指令》为基础,对欧盟及其各成员国有关强制要约收购的临界点、强制要约收购的价格以及强制要约收购的豁免制度进行重点研究,并对如何完善我国上市公司强制要约收购制度作一探讨。该指令的研究对完善我国证券法律制度具有重要的现实意义。     

论欧盟条约中的辅助性原则

《欧盟基础条约》和尚未生效的《欧洲宪法条约》均规定了辅助性原则。虽然该原则不可避免的具有内在的模糊开放性,但仍不影响它作为一项宪法性原则的地位。辅助性原则最大的意义在于:为在欧盟和成员国或其他主体之间选择最为合适的权力行使主体提供了程序性的保障,因而提供了一个促进协调以取得平衡的重要概念空间。