Presumption of Innocence: Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings Social Fieldwork Research (FRANET)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Presumption of Innocence: procedural rights in criminal proceedings Social Fieldwork Research (FRANET) Country: GERMANY Contractor’s name: Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte e.V. Authors: Thorben Bredow, Lisa Fischer Reviewer: Petra Follmar-Otto Date: 27 May 2020 (Revised version: 20 August 2020; second revision: 28 August 2020) DISCLAIMER: This document was commissioned under contract as background material for a comparative analysis by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) for the project ‘Presumption of Innocence’. The information and views contained in the document do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA. The document is made publicly available for transparency and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. Table of Contents PART A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1 PART B. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 4 B.1 PREPARATION OF FIELDWORK ........................................................................................... 4 B.2 IDENTIFICATION AND RECRUITMENT OF PARTICIPANTS ................................................... 4 B.3 SAMPLE AND DESCRIPTION OF FIELDWORK ...................................................................... 5 B.4 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 7 B.5 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................... 7 PART C. MAIN REPORT ANALYTICAL STRUCTURE ........................................................................... 8 C.1 The right to be presumed innocent in general ................................................................... 8 a. How are the different professions implementing the presumption of innocence? ............... 8 b. Potential factors that have an effect on guaranteeing the presumption of innocence ....... 10 a. Discussion of findings ............................................................................................................ 13 C.2 Public references to guilt .................................................................................................. 13 a. How do the different professions liaise with the media? ..................................................... 15 b. Mapping of laws and guidelines ........................................................................................... 17 c. Effects media has on presumption of innocence ................................................................. 18 d. Differences in media coverage concerning certain groups .................................................. 24 aa. Men and women ................................................................................................................. 24 bb. Other groups ....................................................................................................................... 25 e. Persons other than officials engaged in the criminal justice system commenting on investigations and trials ................................................................................................................ 27 f. Remedies ................................................................................................................................... 28 g. Discussion of findings ................................................................................................................ 29 C.3 The presentation of suspects and accused persons ....................................................... 30 a. Measures used to present the accused and its impact on their presumption of innocence ... 31 b. Clothing ..................................................................................................................................... 35 c. Presentation of vulnerable groups ............................................................................................ 36 d. Reactions to presenting accused as being guilty ...................................................................... 37 e. Discussion of findings ................................................................................................................ 38 C.4 Burden of proof ............................................................................................................... 38 a. Exceptions to the burden of proof ........................................................................................ 40 b. Confession ............................................................................................................................. 43 c. Discussion of findings ............................................................................................................ 46 2 C.5 The right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself ............................................. 47 a. The right to remain silent in practice ........................................................................................ 48 b. How is information on the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself shared with the accused? ................................................................................................................................. 49 c. Self-incrimination ...................................................................................................................... 51 d. Right to remain silent ................................................................................................................ 52 e. Discussion of findings ................................................................................................................ 54 C.6 The right to be present at the trial and to have a new trial ........................................... 55 a. Consequences of non-appearance ............................................................................................ 56 b. What has been understood as “effective participation”? ........................................................ 57 c. Vulnerable groups ..................................................................................................................... 58 d. Discussion of findings ................................................................................................................ 61 C.7 Challenges and improvements ........................................................................................ 61 a. Challenges ............................................................................................................................. 61 b. Improvements ....................................................................................................................... 63 c. Suggestions ........................................................................................................................... 65 PART D. GENERAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 67 PART E. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 69 ANNEX ....................................................................................................................................... 71 3 PART A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was commissioned by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) and will serve as the basis for a comparative analysis of the implementation of Directive 2016/343/EU in a number of Member States. In Germany, the implementation of the Directive, which stipulates the fundamental rights of defendants in criminal proceedings, comprised only individual law changes concerning the right to be present at the trial. The Federal Ministry of Justice considered the other rights included in the Directive to be regulated in accordance with European Law already. The study discusses the implementation of these rights in Germany from the perspective of judges, public prosecutors, police officers and defence lawyers. A total series of twelve qualitative interviews was conducted with persons from these groups, mainly in the area of Berlin, between February and July 2020. The findings discussed in this report are the result of qualitative content analysis of the interviews. The report focuses on the implementation of the right to be presumed innocent in general, public references to guilt, the presentation of suspects and accused persons, possible exceptions to the presumption of innocence, the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself as well as the right to be present at the trial and to have a new trial. The right to be presumed innocent in general: The first chapter is based on the interviewees’ own reflections on how they implement the right to be presumed innocent in practice and on factors that could have an impact on this right. First of all, almost all interviewees indicated that the presumption of innocence played a major role in their everyday work. When asked about potential factors that had an effect on guaranteeing the presumption of innocence, defence lawyers named considerably more factors than the other interviewees. The group of judges, public prosecutors, and police officers, on the other hand, stated that in practice the presumption of innocence applied in principle equally to all people, regardless of factors such as