The Aim of the Criminal Justice System Is to Protect the Public From Criminal - Essay Example

? ‘It is impossible to discern from the approach of the judiciary to either the question of the incidence of the burden of proof in criminal cases, or their reaction to evidence obtained illicitly by the police, whether the paramount concern of the criminal justice system is to protect the public from criminals.’ Discuss. The Aim of the Criminal Justice System is to protect the Public from Criminal The main objective of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is to offer justice to all, by apprehending and punishing the offenders and assisting them to stop in indulging in further crimes and to rehabilitate them after their conviction while safeguarding the innocent public from such offenders1. CJS is accountable for apprehending the criminals, penalising them for their offences, executing the orders of the court like custodial punishment, collecting fines imposed by courts, supervising the community and to rehabilitate them for stopping future crimes2. CJS evaluates its operation by employing the following five indicators namely a) bringing crimes to justice b) enhancing the awareness and confidence of the public c) satisfying the victims by sentencing the criminals d) to redress the disproportionality among various races and e) recovery of stolen assets or properties3. As per recent research study carried over by academics at Birmingham University reveals that crime rates will tend to decline when there are tougher prison sentences and further there is a direct link between levels of policing activity and crime reduction . Hence, the study strongly suggests that UK government should desist from downsizing its police personnel, mainly on the grounds of cost cutting. The above study found that prison imprisonment was especially successful in minimising the property crime by repeat and serious offenders in UK. It also found that if sentence is increased to 16.4 months from that of 15.4 months, it is likely to minimise the burglaries in the succeeding year by 4800 out of annual aggregate of 962,700. The report finds that there is unambiguous evidence that more effective and sustained policing will definitely minimise the crime rates in UK4. Burden of proof in criminal cases Under English criminal law , the most renowned cannon is that the accused will be treated as innocent until the prosecution proves the guilty of offence of an accused by beyond realistic doubt. Though the English law assumes an accused as an innocent, but it yet requires upon the prosecution to produce adequate evidence so that the court can declare the accused as an offender. The famous maxim as held in Hobson5 that one innocent man should not be punished even if ten guilty men could escape from the punishment. Earlier, in Woolmington v DPP, where defendant W claimed that he killed her wife accidentally. In that case, the court was of the view that defendant had the onus of proving any defence it which wanted to forward. However, the same was turned down by the House of Lords, and it held that, the prosecution had the onus of establishing all the components of crime except in some extraordinary cases, and it did not acknowledge any defences forwarded by the accused6. Thus, the “golden thread “ rule which inflicts the whole legal onus on the prosecution, and the maxim that the Crown must establish its case beyond any satisfactory doubt was held in very old case namely 7White8. Thus, in Woolmington case9, the House of Lord set precedent by pronouncing that the prosecution assumes the whole onus in criminal cases. It is claimed that by placing the whole burden of proof on prosecution, it helps to minimise the wrongful convictions by police. It also denotes the severity of criminal convictions and thereby increases the moral convictions among the police. Thus, under English law, the prosecution is responsible for any of defences put forth by an accused like alibi, provocation, self-defence or duress. In Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police,10 in criminal proceedings, the onus of negativing self-defence lies upon the prosecution11. In Carr-Briant, it was held by Humphreys J that the crown bears the onus of establishing offence beyond reasonable doubt as the onus inflicted upon the accused is less burdensome, which is on balance of probabilities12. Only in exceptional cases, the burden of proof is imposed on the accused like in cases where insanity is being shown as a defence as held in M’Naghten’s13 case. Under UK laws, some statues may explicitly warrant that the defence assumes the legal onus of proof in criminal cases. For instance, s 2 (2) of the Homicide Act, 1957 specifically warrants that the in case of offence of murder, it shall for the defence to establish that the accused individual is not accountable and not to be punished of murder14. Evidence obtained illicitly by the police As already highlighted, the prosecution assumes the responsibility of establishing guilt of accused in criminal cases in UK and Article 6 (2) of ECHR (European Human Rights Convention) demands a deduction of innocence on the accused till the guilt is established by the prosecution. Thus, to establish the guilt, there is a duty cast on the prosecution to gather evidence to corroborate their stand. Thus, the prosecution can even undertake improper ways to collect evidence in support of their stand, particularly if their traditional style of gathering evidence demonstrates to be unsuccessful15. However ,use of improper means to obtain evidence by police may be alleged as an infringement of Article 8 of the ECHR which requires that the right to respect for private life to be ensured or as an infringement of the prohibition of torture or degrading or inhuman punishment or treatment ensured by Article 3 of the ECHR. In Khan v UK, it was held that evidence obtained by improper means did violate the Article 8, but it cannot be construed as illegal in the sense of being opposition to domestic criminal law. It was also of the view that the main question was its admissibility and not authenticity of the evidence and was of the view that there was no infringement of Article 6 as the admission of such improperly obtained evidence would not impact the fairness of the case16. The justification for this approach is to unearth the truth and the detection of the guilt. This is given more significance than to the accused right to private life. As per s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the UK courts have authority to reject evidence, which is short of relevance and might endanger fairness of trial if it is admitted17. Since the UK courts are following an inclusionary approach towards evidence, all relevant evidence offered by the parties to the criminal proceedings has been admitted prima facie, and this is mainly to favour the accused and to guarantee a fair trial. In R. v. Leathem18 case, it was admitted that evidence would be admissible even if you steal the same19. Thus, in UK, unearthing of truth is given much priority as the UK courts do not want to support illegal means of gathering evidence on the part of police. In case, if the police uses improperly obtained evidence, an accused can pray for compensation for the breach of his rights. Thus, when real evidence is barred, this tantamount to an infringement of accused right against self incrimination or loss due to deliberate and gross police misbehaviour. Under the Police and Evidence Act of 1984, the confessional evidence made under police custody will always be excluded from admission as it is not only reliable but also probable to impact the fairness of the trial.20 Conclusion UK’s criminal law ensures that innocent should ever be punished. Further , under UK’s criminal law, prosecution has the responsibility to prove guilty beyond doubt. This is mainly intended to minimise wrongful arrest by police. Further , the judiciary wants that there should not be any coerce in obtaining evidence by police. Birmingham University stydy recommends that there should not be any downsizing of budget for police department as there exists direct nexus between policing , sentencing and crime rates in UK.. The above study also found that long term sentencing has in fact minimised crime rates in UK . Hence ,it is recommended that no austerity measure is to be taken by UK government for downsizing its budgetary provisions to police and correction department in UK as the main objective of the criminal justice system in UK is to protect the public from criminals. Bibliography Ballin, M F H H, Anticipative Criminal Investigation (Springer 2012) Blackstone, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2012 (Oxford University Press 2012) Dennis, I, The Law of Evidence (4th edition Thomson: S&M 2010) Fletcher, G P, Basic Concepts of Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 1998) Hamilton, C & Hamilton, C (2007) The Presumption of Innocence in Irish Criminal Law (Irish Academic Press 2007) Helm, T & Doward, J, ‘Longer Prison Terms Really do Cut Crime, Study Shows ‘http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/07/longer-prison-sentences-cut-crime > accessed 15 November 2012 Herring, J, Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford University Press 2012) Lambert, J L, Police Powers and Accountability (Taylor & Francis 1986) McEwan, J, 'From Adversarialism to Managerialism: Criminal Justice in Transition' [2011] Legal Studies Munday, R, Evidence (Oxford University Press 2007) Murphy, P, Murphy on Evidence (Oxford University Press 2007) Roberts, P and Zuckerman, A, Criminal Evidence, (2nd edition, OUP 2010) Roberts, J V R H & Roberts, Understanding Public Attitudes to Criminal Justice (Open University Press 2005) Spencer, M & Spencer J, Evidence Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide. (Oxford University Press 2012) Tapper, C, Cross and Tapper on Evidence (Oxford University Press 2007) Read More