The presumption of innocence is the right of every accused person to be considered innocent of a criminal offence charged against him, so long as he has not been declared guilty by a judge. The judge can only declare a person guilty of an offence if that person pleads guilty, or following a trial.

The right to the presumption of innocence is guaranteed by the Criminal Code. It is also protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states, “Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.”

There are several important principles that flow from this guarantee:

• When a person is accused of committing an offence, the State, represented by a Crown prosecutor, begins legal proceedings in a criminal court. It’s the prosecutor’s job to prove the guilt of the accused using the available evidence. We say that the Crown has the burden of proof;
  
• To be able to find an accused person guilty, the judge must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty;
  
• The accused has a right to remain silent at all stages of the process—from arrest by the police, right up until the final verdict, and even until sentencing if there is a guilty verdict;
  
• The accused has a right to not incriminate himself. This means that the accused is not obliged to testify at his own trial, for instance;
  
• The accused has a right to be judged by an independent and impartial tribunal. An independent tribunal is one that doesn’t answer to anyone and is free to make whatever decision it wants, without fearing any consequences. An impartial tribunal is one that is disinterested. For example, the court would not be considered impartial if the judge were himself the victim of the alleged offence;
  
• The accused has a right to make full answer and defence. It follows from this that an accused person has the right to know the evidence against her, to have time to prepare before the trial, to present evidence, to testify and to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses.

The right to be presumed innocent did not always exist. In fact, it was introduced in Canada in the 18th century, with the British conquest. In New France, mere suspicions were considered sufficient to accuse a person of a crime. The person would then have to prove his innocence.

This system could leave the accused defenceless before his accusers. Imagine that you are accused of an arson that took place last week. Without the presumption of innocence, you could be accused without knowing why. Then, you would have to convince the court that you aren’t the person that did it. This could be tough, especially if you spent the whole evening at home, watching TV all by yourself…

Without the presumption of innocence, innocent people could be convicted. As a society, Canada has decided that it was better to risk allowing a guilty person to go free than to convict – and possibly imprison – an innocent person.

A criminal conviction can deprive someone of their dignity and their liberty. This is too serious to take lightly. The presumption of innocence exists precisely to guarantee that no one will be convicted without sufficient evidence.

Because of the right to the presumption of innocence, the accused doesn’t have to prove that he is innocent. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is instead on the Crown counsel, who represents the State (or “society”). The evidence must convince the judge—beyond any reasonable doubt—that an offence was committed and that the accused was the one who did it.

The right to the presumption of innocence gives the accused the right to have the benefit of the doubt. This means that at the end of the trial, if there is any doubt in the mind of the judge or the jurors about the guilt of the accused, they have to acquit him (find him “not guilty”).

So, if the judge believes the accused, she has to let him go. If the judge doesn’t believe the accused, but his version of the story does raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt, she still has to let him go. If the judge doesn’t believe the accused, the defence’s arguments raise no reasonable doubt in her mind, and the evidence presented by the prosecutor also convinces her beyond a reasonable doubt, then and only then can the judge declare the accused guilty of the offence charged.