Basic Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings

Everybody has constitutional rights, including accused persons in criminal proceedings. These rights are protected under the law and by human rights watchdogs.

Having a criminal history can negatively impact almost all spheres of your life. That said, people facing criminal charges contact criminal lawyers in Toronto for legal counsel on how to resolve such situations.

Rights of People Facing Criminal Charges

The constitutional rights of criminal suspects and offenders include:

Presumption of Innocence

Criminal suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, criminal proceedings should start from the presumption of innocence. 

Most judicial systems use the reverse approach, where criminal proceedings start from a presumption of guilt. The onus to prove innocence is put on criminal defendants. This reverse approach is attributed to Blackstone’s canon, which states that “it is better for ten guilty people to escape than an innocent person to suffer”. 

The presumption of innocence is recognised by Human Rights, most constitutions, and numerous international treaties. The effects of the presumption of innocence.

Protection From Self-Incrimination  

Criminal defendants shouldn’t be forced to self-incriminate in fair judicial systems. This right is enshrined in the human rights treaties and it prohibits the torturing of criminal suspects. 

Forcibly obtaining a statement from a suspect person who wishes to remain silent is illegal. The use of psychoactive substances to coerce a suspect to self-incriminate is also prohibited. 

Arresting officers must inform suspects of their right to remain silent on first contact. The family members of criminal suspects are also protected from harassment by this constitutional right.

Right to a Fair Hearing 

While some criminal suspects have a right to remain silent to avoid self-incriminating statements, others prefer speaking out and sharing their side of the story. Such rights should be granted in fair judicial systems. 

By law, criminal proceedings shouldn’t conclude before defendants are given a hearing. In most cases, convictions in absentia become problematic. Suspects should at least be represented by a lawyer. Otherwise, absentia convictions are not compatible with the rule of law.

Criminal suspects should further be allowed to provide or invoke new evidence if it can potentially exonerate them. Such evidence is allowable during the trial stage of criminal litigation, but it should be evaluated by a judge before admission. A refusal for additional evidence should be justified by the court.

The right to a fair hearing includes the right to object to bad behaviors of court officials and other law enforcement authorities like the police. Accused persons should be allowed to raise objections when they’re convinced that their rights have been violated. Valid violations must be resolved appropriately even if it means acquitting the criminal suspect.

Right to a Fast Trial or Judicial Process 

By law, justice delayed is justice denied. While the statement applies to most legal disputes, its effects are more felt in criminal cases. The justice process can be long and can take a tremendous emotional toll on criminal suspects. 

Criminal defense lawyers know the harmful mental effects suffered by their clients, including: 

• Low productivity at work

• Job loss if the suspect cannot cope with the anxieties of litigation

• Marital challenges

• Excess anxiety can cause depression and other stress-related illnesses 

Under such circumstances, even an acquittal may feel like a big victory. Sadly, prosecutors may exploit such scenarios to force deals that favor them. They know most people will likely break under the pressure of looming detention or the adverse effects of extended trials on their businesses. 

A speedy resolution for admission of guilt can feel more like extortion than receiving deserved justice. Such practices qualify for duress and perpetrators (prosecutors) should face disciplinary actions for professional misconduct.

The state facilitates speedy justice processes to avoid unnecessary delays. The quality of a verdict cannot be negatively impacted by speedy justice because law enforcement authorities are well-funded to provide speedy resolutions. If delays are avoidable, there should be available mechanisms to address such situations to avoid punishing suspects for things beyond their control.

Right to Legal Counsel and More Assistance

By law, criminal suspects and offenders have a right to Legal representation and help, regardless of their status. This right ensures all Canadians have equal access to fair justice.

Law enforcement must inform accused persons of their right to legal counsel and/or representation. Failing to inform suspects of this right or deliberately obstructing criminal suspects from exercising this right attracts legal consequences.

Statements or evidence obtained when suspects aren’t aware of their right to legal counsel is illegal. That said, such pieces of evidence or statements aren’t admissible in court. 

Criminal suspects must be granted legal aid if they can’t afford to hire a criminal attorney to represent them.

Also, extra help must be accorded to the naturally disadvantaged criminal suspects, such as the blind and deaf, among others. 

The rights of criminal suspects, convicts, and offenders should be upheld in a fair and just judicial system. A criminal attorney can help protect the rights of people facing criminal proceedings.