Presumption of innocence

Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury).

The maxim and its equivalents have been adopted by many countries that use a civil law system, including Brazil,[4] China,[5] France,[6] Italy,[7][8] Philippines,[9] Poland,[10] Romania[11] and Spain.

[13] The presumption of innocence is fundamental to Islamic law where the principle that the onus of proof is on the accuser or claimant is strongly held, based on a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi.

[17] After the time of Muhammad, the fourth Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib has also been cited to say, "Avert the prescribed punishment by rejecting doubtful evidence.

Whilst common in early Germanic law, compurgation was formally adopted in Rome by Pope Innocent III in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council and trials by fire and water specifically were forbidden.

[23] This is often expressed in the phrase "presumed innocent until proven guilty", coined by the British barrister Sir William Garrow (1760–1840)[24] during a 1791 trial at the Old Bailey.

[26] The presumption of innocence was originally expressed by the French cardinal and canonical jurist Jean Lemoine in the phrase "item quilbet presumitur innocens nisi probetur nocens (a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty)", based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.

[29] It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.

[27] To ensure this legal protection is maintained, a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials.

This duty on the prosecution was famously referred to as the "golden thread" in the criminal law by Lord Sankey LC in Woolmington v DPP: Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen—that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception...This right is considered important enough in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions: In the United Kingdom changes have been made affecting this principle.

Among other things, it eliminated several reverse onus provisions from the Criminal Code, some of which had previously been found unconstitutional, and others pre-emptively in order to avoid further Charter challenges.