THE PRESUMPTION of innocence until proven guilty is probably the most important cornerstone of our criminal legal system. It is a presumption that can only be rebutted by the prosecution proving its case against the accused.We therefore found it rather ominous when last week's Sunday Gleaner quoted an attorney-at-law as saying that when an accused is charged with killing a lawyer, in his view, the presumption of innocence which is enshrined in the constitution no longer exists to protect them.
It is bad enough for a member of the legal profession to disregard in such a manner any protection, which he or she goes so far as to identify as being constitutionally enshrined. But this reaction from a lawyer gives even more cause for concern when one realises that the origin of this presumption, and protection is grounded in more fundamental tenets of our jurisprudence. This jurisprudence does not allow for a code of laws for persons accused of committing crimes against lawyers and a separate code for those accused of committing crimes against ordinary people in the society! As Derek Jones, president of the Jamaican Bar Association, correctly points out in his subsequent letter to the editor, the identity or popularity of the person murdered or the feelings or venom directed at those who (are accused of) committing such crimes have no place whatever in the determination of guilt or innocence. He also points out that under our system, any person charged with a crime is entitled to that presumption of innocence. If then a subjective and automatic rebuttal of the presumption of innocence of those accused of the murder of attorney-at-law Shirley Playfair is behind the inability of those accused to secure legal representation, then this country is indeed in serious trouble.
The public is already looking suspiciously on those whom society expects to maintain and guard the law. This is based on the public's perception of their actions in the recent past, ranging from their handling of the entire Michael Gayle affair to the recent brutal beatings in the St. Catherine District prison.
But criticism of the legal structure and the practitioners within it is not new. This is a feature of every democratic society with a free press. However, careless utterances such as the one attributed to an attorney-at-law in last week's Sunday Gleaner may lead to unfair criticism which could tarnish the image of the legal structure of this country. That is why Mr. Jones clarification on behalf of the Jamaican Bar Association was most timely and most welcome.
