French Law

[Jake]

I was just reading a book which implied that, in the French legal system, there is a presumption of guilt, and that innocence needs to be proved. Is this really true? I thought it was a basic human right (upheld by EU human rights' legislation) to assume innocence etc. etc.

Just a brief query. Ta

Jake

[Clarkkent]

There is an important distinction between English and Napoleonic legal systems.

In English Law (ie UK, Commonwealth, USA except Louisiana) the trial system is accusatory: that is the prosecution makes an accusation and then must justify that accusation. The prosecution have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, if they cannot then the accused person is not guilty. Hence the accused is considered innocent until proved otherwise.

In Napoleonic Law (which has its roots in Justinian Law) the trial system is inquisitorial: the court looks at all aspects of the case and reaches a judgement based on the evidence presented. Since any case will have been the subject of investigation directed by an examining magistrate (who is a judge), there may be the presumption that the accused must be guilty because the examining magistrate would not have brought the case to trial otherwise. At the back of my mind, however, there is a suspicion that no presumption is actually made.

Another difference is that in the Civil Courts, English Law places great importance on precedence, that is decisions made in previous similar cases. However in Napoleonic Law, decisions are governed by the appropriate code and cannot be affected by any previous decision.

EDIT

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United nations) states:

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

 

[Jake]

Many thanks for such a comprehensive reply. Most interesting and a great help.

Kind regards

Jake