THE universal presumption of innocence should be extended to those undergoing an appeal process. Individuals should be allowed to proceed with their case until a final decision is given by the highest court in the land.

A recent criminal case involving Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, illustrates this point. The High Court as sentenced Syed Saddiq to seven years in jail, two strokes of the cane, and a RM10 million fine following his conviction on four charges of abetting criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of assets, and money laundering related to funds belonging to Bersatu youth wing Armada, where he served as its chief three years ago. However, the High Court has granted Syed Saddiq a stay of execution pending appeal.

It is crucial to remember that worldwide, a fundamental principle in the criminal justice system holds that a defendant or accused is innocent until proven guilty by the court of competent jurisdiction. In other words, the prosecutor or the party bringing the legal action must prove their case against the defendant or accused according to existing rules and procedures based on the standard or quantum of proof. Two sets of standards or quantum of proof must be satisfied before the defendant can be found guilty and face legal sentencing, namely balance of probabilities, adopted in civil trials, and beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal trials.

The question arises: Does the same presumption of innocence apply to convicted individuals making an appeal to a higher court? In Malaysia, the right to appeal is outlined in the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91), providing a two-tier right of appeal for convicted persons. An appeal is considered a continuation of a trial, as established in Malaysian jurisprudence, such as in the case of Balasingham v Public Prosecutor (1959) 1 MLJ 193 and further affirmed in the recent case of Bird Dominic Jude v Public Prosecutor (2014) 3 MLJ 745 by the Federal Court. If an appeal process is viewed as a continuation of trial and the presumption of innocence is deemed a fundamental right, there is no justifiable reason to deny a convicted person this right during the appeal process. Thus, upholding the presumption of innocence is important to prevent unfair treatment or negative perceptions of defendants or accused before the trial or appeal process concludes.

The presumption of innocence is a legal right belonging to all accused in a court trial and is considered part of human rights, guaranteed under article 11 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. Article 11 (1) states, “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.” The presumption of innocence is a basic right conferred upon an accused by the common law of England, as stated in the case of Woolmington v DPP (1935) AC 462.

In Malaysia, while the Federal Constitution, the highest law in the land, does not specifically mention the presumption of innocence, numerous court cases have shown that such a principle exists, is respected, and adopted in our country. A reference can be made to the Federal Court case of PP v Gan Boon Aun (2017) 4 CLJ 41. This right is also evident through article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution, which enshrines fundamental human rights related to individual life and liberty. Article 5 (1) states, “No person in the country may be deprived of life or personal liberty except in accordance with law.”

Everyone has the right to a fair hearing and to present a defence. Until a final verdict is given by the court it is unfair for anyone to make damaging comments about defendants or accused individuals. – November 18, 2023.

* Muzaffar Syah Mallow is associate professor of shariah and law at Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.