Right to fair trial

The money or property is returned when the accused appears for trial. However, if the judge sets a very high bail, it may be impossible for the accused to produce the needed sum. Setting excessive bail has the same effect as refusing to set bail. The more serious the crime, the higher the bail that is likely to be demanded from the accused person. In murder cases, the accused is usually held without bail because the crime is so serious. Persons found guilty of certain offenses are sometimes ordered to pay a fine or serve a jail term.

In some cases, a fine is imposed in addition to a jail term. The Eighth Amendment requires that the fine imposed must be reasonable since inability to pay can lead to a jail term. The Eighth Amendment also makes cruel and unusual punishments illegal. Whippings, branding, and other forms of punishment are considered cruel and unusual.

There are other examples. Perhaps a prisoner is held in solitary confinement for a very long time, or is kept on bread and water for a long period of time. Such punishments might be considered cruel and unusual. Guilty person have rights under our system of law. The Ninth Amendment states:. This means that the rights listed in the Constitution are not the only rights people have.

The right to engage in political activity has been cited as being protected by this amendment. Otherwise, the Ninth Amendment has not played an important part in American history. People also have a right to be tried without undue delay to minimise pre-trial detention and reduce the human impact of criminal proceedings. People in detention are entitled to humane conditions where their essential needs are met and, except in extreme circumstances and for a limited time, have a right of access to the outside world, including the right to communicate with family and a lawyer.

A fundamental element of the right to a fair trial is that every person should be presumed innocent unless and until proved guilty.

Therefore, the responsibility falls on the state to prove guilt and to discharge the presumption of innocence. Due to the presumption of innocence, a person cannot be compelled to confess guilt or give evidence against themselves. It is for the state to produce evidence of guilt, not for the defendant to prove innocence. Because of the serious consequences of conviction, the state must prove guilt to a high standard. Given the massive human impact of criminal proceedings on defendants, and the presumption of innocence, trials should take place without undue delay.

It would be unfair to allow states numerous attempts to try to secure a conviction. If a case goes to trial and guilt is not proved, unless exceptional circumstances exist, the person should not be tried again.

This requires the state to do the job of prosecution properly in the first instance. People awaiting trial have not been convicted of any offence and many will ultimately be cleared. Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. This is one reason why, except in rare cases, people are entitled to a public hearing.

Open justice enables the public to see how justice is administered and by subjecting it to public and press scrutiny, safeguards the fairness of the trial. This is also why people are entitled to a reasoned judgment which has been made public.

Open justice requires people to be informed of the reasons for their arrest and any pre-trial detention to safeguard liberty. They must also be given information on their rights as a suspect. Without this information, conveyed in a language the person understands, rights that exist in law are illusory in practice. People should be told what they are being prosecuted for and shown the evidence against them, in a language they understand.

Without this information, a person will not have a fair chance to present a defence , for example by gathering evidence to counter claims made against them or providing alibi evidence.

The right to a fair trial also requires that people charged with offences be allowed to attend court and to participate effectively in the trial. This enables the court to interact with them and allows the person to hear and respond to the prosecution case. Defendants are entitled to give evidence and, except in exceptional cases, are also entitled to call witnesses and cross-examine prosecution witnesses.

As a society grows, the concept of power separation blurs in order for it to function properly, which has resulted in huge growth in the administration of that society. Initially, it was the belief that if there are no judicial proceedings, the fair, public, and expeditious aspects are of little use.

This implies the observance of principles of natural justice. A judge must not have preconceived notions about the case in front of him, and he must not act in a way that benefits either one of the two parties.

This stand is violated when a trial judge refuses to grant an adjournment to enable the accused person to obtain legal representation; when an accused is denied access to his case file in the police or court; when the court is unable to regulate the hostile environment created by the public, and so on. The right to a fair trial, now certainly applicable to administrative actions well within the domain of administrative law, that is governed by legality and administrative morality norms.

In other words, rather than administering legally, constitutions regulate it structurally. Written constitutions, appear to reflect changes in governing technology. For instance, the latest made constitution sets bodies like an ombudsman, human rights commissions, and a corruption commission.

Administrative law is addressed in constitutions through the introduction of administrative court systems. And these administrative courts while deciding upon the question of administrative actions, are required to follow the principles of natural justice. The first component of a fair trial was discussed by the Indian judiciary in the cases of Keshav Mills Co.

Suvarna Board Mill [11] , where the former concluded that issuing a notice is purely and simply a procedural necessity and thus cannot be used to quash an administrative decision, and this was reiterated in the later judgment.

However, there was a caveat that this would not dispute the authority unless and until a reasonable opportunity to be heard had been provided. In Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT [12] , the court determined that people appearing just before administrative authority with adjudicatory powers has the right to be informed of what evidence would be used against them. Furthermore, administrative authorities must give the person against whom evidence is offered a complete opportunity to present evidence, both testimonial, and documentary.

The court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. In such cases, evidence can be recorded in the presence of pleader. The presence of pleader is thus, deemed to be a presence of accused. Therefore, actual presence is not necessary, a constructive presence is also enough.

According to section 57 of the Code, no person arrested will be detained for more than 24 hours and will be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. It is also a fundamental right under Article 22 2 of the Constitution. A detention of a person in excess of 24 hours without the permission of the Magistrate will be termed as illegal detention.

Bail simply refers to the release of a person from the custody of police. When a person is arrested for a bailable offence, he is entitled to be released on bail. As per section 50 2 of the Code, it is the duty of the police officer to inform the arrested person of his right to bail and allow to make arrangements for sureties.

This doctrine implies that if a person is prosecuted and convicted or acquitted cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence. C also explicitly lays down the rule that a person once acquitted or convicted will not be tried for the same offence or for any other offence on the same facts. Article 20 2 of the Constitution and section 1 differs from each despite the fact that their meaning is the same.

Gorantla Venkateswara Rao, [15] differentiated between article 20 2 of the Constitution and section 1 of Cr. C states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts. Therefore, the second prosecution would be barred by Section 1 of Cr. The right has been provided to ensure that an accused do not make any statement due to threatening, influence or any other compulsion.

However, where an accused himself admits the guilt without any inducement Article 20 3 cannot be invoked. According to this article, the accused need not require to make any statement against his will and the onus is on the prosecution to establish the guilt. In Nandani Sathpathy v. Dani, [16] it was held that a person is required to truthfully answer all the question except those which admit his personal guilt. Article 20 1 of the Constitution provides protection against ex-post facto criminal laws.

As per this article a person can be convicted only for violating the law in force. This implies that if an act is not an offence at the time of its commission it cannot be an offence at the date subsequent to its commission.

A person can be lawfully punished only for acts which are charged as an offence at the time of their commission. An act charged as an offence at a later date does not make an act committed before such an act punishable. Generally, a legislature has the power to make retrospective as well as prospective laws. But Article 20 1 prohibits the legislature to make retrospective criminal laws.

In Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh , [17] it was held that offering bribe was not an offence in It was held that the accused could not be punished under Section A for offering the bribe in An appeal is initiated to review a judgement given by the lower court by a higher court.

An appeal is an inherent right of every person in criminal cases. The appellate court under section 1 of the Code is empowered to suspend execution of any sentence. The court is also empowered to release the convicted person on bail if he is confined if the appeal is pending.

Section of the Cr. It is the Bill of Rights which offer a certain right to citizens of Canada. Section 11 of the Charter provides rights in criminal matters in order to secure fair and impartial criminal justice system.

The Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Rose, [19] held that the right to a fair trial is guaranteed by S. The obligation of a trial judge to ensure that an accused right to a fair trial is preserved has been enshrined in s.