Presumption of Innocence in Singapore

1347 Words6 Pages
Controversies ❖ (i) What is the presumption? ❖ (ii) What is the status of the presumption in Singapore? ❖ (iii) Is the presumption of innocence meaningful in Singapore given that the accused bears the legal burden of proving defences on a balance of probabilities? ❖ (iv) Do statutory presumptions erode the presumption of innocence? What is the presumption of innocence? ❖ The core of the concept is definable. The presumption provides that the accused is innocent until he is proven guilty. XP v PP (at [90]). ❖ However, there is fundamental disagreement on what exactly the presumption of innocence requires: ➢ English criminal law takes the view that the presumption of innocence requires the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This means that, in addition to proving the elements of the offence, the prosecution must disprove any defences that the accused puts in issue (with the exception of the defence of insanity and any statutory exception): Woolmington v DPP. ➢ In contrast, under Singapore law, the prosecution only has to prove the offence elements beyond reasonable doubt. The accused bears the legal, and not evidential, burden of proving every defence under the Penal Code and in any law defining the offence is on the accused: s. 107; Jayasena. This burden must be discharged by the accused on a balance of probabilities: Yuvaraj. ❖ The Singapore government recently confirmed that it is committed to the upholding the presumption of innocence as a core principle in its commitment to the rule of law (K Shanmugam, 25 Aug 08). The judiciary has also affirmed that the presumption of innocence is a core principle in Singapore’s criminal justice system: XP v PP ❖ It appears therefore that Singapore is in fundamental disagreement with the English criminal justice system as to the meaning of the presumption of
Open Document