A jury must decide whether the prosecution has proved its case. Photo / File
A jury must decide whether the prosecution has proved its case. Photo / File
Guilty or not guilty. It seems simple enough. But when a trial jury comes back with the latter verdict, many are often left wondering what it really means — is the person that has just been acquitted innocent?
New Zealand law states that everyone who is charged with an offencehas the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. If they are acquitted they retain that status.
But it is a common misunderstanding that the jury must decide whether the person is "innocent". Rather, a jury must decide whether the prosecution has proved its case.
Auckland Crown Solicitor Simon Moore, QC, said an acquittal represented the opinion of the jury that the Crown had not satisfied them to the point they could be sure of the guilt of the person charged.
"The jury isn't saying 'this is a declaration that X is innocent'. That isn't the job of the jury. Their job is to determine whether the Crown has proved its case — not whether a particular accused person committed the crime or not."
Marie Dyhrberg, a defence lawyer, said a jury must acquit if there was "a single doubt on an essential element of a charge".
"Juries are not required to disclose their reasoning and how they come to reach their verdicts," she said.
"With any acquittal there will be a wide range — from '[the accused] did not do it and we are convinced they did not do it' right through to 'we are suspicious; we think probably he did it; possibly he did it; likely he did it' — but this standard still falls short of beyond reasonable doubt so acquittals must follow."
