View
217
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Is it permissible for the Public Prosecutor to submit new evidence at the trial stage ?
Citation preview
Is it permissible for the Public Prosecutor to
submit new evidence at the trial stage?
▪ ▪
Investigations in criminal offences are conducted in accordance with
specified procedures that are clearly set out in the Criminal Procedural Law
in the form of described and specific forms; these must be adhered to
during every procedure of an investigation in any criminal case. The Law
has vested the powers relating to the detection of offenses, as well as the
tracing of their perpetrators in the Public Prosecutors.
The Law has also regulated the exercise of such powers by setting out the
procedural standards by which the Public Prosecutor must abide when
conducting any investigation within the authorities granted to him. These
procedural standards must be followed during all the stages of the
investigation proceedings; starting with the point at which it is suspected
that an offense has been committed, through the various stages of the
investigation, the collection of evidence, the presentation of the
documents, and to the suspect’s interrogation.
Once the Public Prosecutor has completed his investigation proceedings,
he must conclude this stage by issuing a decision on it. The Public
Prosecutor issues his decision which may be to hold the documents, prevent
a trial, or to charge the defendant.
Once such a decision is examined by the Attorney General, then the role
of the Public Prosecutor in relation to the investigatory stage is completed
and the Public Prosecutor is prohibited from taking any new investigatory
actions including the collection of evidence. This is subject to an exception
where the Public Prosecutor’s issued decision had been to prevent a trial
on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence; it is only in such circumstances
that the Public Prosecutor is authorized to initiate new investigatory actions
where new evidence arises.
April
1st,
2013
Is it permissible for the Public Prosecutor to submit new evidence at the trial stage? Page 2
In the ‘Phosphate Case’, the Public Prosecutor finalized the investigation by
issuing an ‘Indictment Decision’ recommending that the defendant be
charged. After that, the Attorney General issued a decision to prosecute.
Thereafter, the case was transferred to the court for trial along with a Bill of
Indictment and a list of the prosecution’s witnesses as required by the Law.
It is important to note that the Public Prosecutor has requested that he be
granted time in order to submit new evidence to the court; this was done
after the court had already heard most of the witnesses included in the
prosecution’s witness list.
Such a request is considered a violation of the procedural rules that govern
criminal proceedings due to the fact that the Public Prosecutor had
already concluded the investigation proceedings and had transferred the
case to the competent court. In other words, by concluding the
investigation proceedings, the case is no longer under the authority of the
Public Prosecutor and therefore he does not have the powers to collect
any further evidence.
As there is no longer an ongoing investigation, the question arises as to on
what basis has the Public Prosecutor collected new evidence when there
is no investigatory case under his authority!
The proper application of the procedural rules does not allow the Public
Prosecutor to submit new evidence during the trial stage; this action not
only violates the procedural rules but also constitutes a contradiction with
the decisions already issued by the Public Prosecutor and the Attorney
General on the case. Taking into consideration the fact that the Law
requires these decisions to illustrate the act committed by the defendant,
the date of its commission, its legal description, the evidence proving that
the act has been committed, the legal clauses on which the decision has
been based and the reasoning for the decision.
Is it permissible for the Public Prosecutor to submit new evidence at the trial stage? Page 3
It is vital to note that the facts underlying the offense must be determined
from the evidence which the Public Prosecutor has collected during the
investigation stage, this evidence must be sufficient to refer the defendant
to the court for trial. The issue then becomes about what is to happen to
those facts after the Public Prosecutor states that he has important new
evidence which had not been considered prior to the issuance of his
decision and which were not relied upon in the reasoning used by the
Public Prosecutor in charging the defendant.
The regulation of the investigation procedures using specific rules that must
be adhered to when conducting any investigatory action is considered
one of the most important guarantees of a fair trial in criminal proceedings,
this is especially vital given that the investigation proceedings, by their very
nature, intervene with or restrict the liberty of suspects.
One of the most important guarantees to a fair trial is to comply with the
constitutional and legal rule which states that ‘the accused is innocent until
proven guilty’; the law has designed the investigation procedures in such a
way so as to uphold this rule by providing that the burden of proof is placed
on the Public Prosecution to provide conclusive evidence attesting to the
fact that that the defendant has actually committed an offense prohibited
by law. The Public Prosecution is bound to provide legitimate evidence (i.e.
evidence obtained in the manner prescribed by the Law).
Further, the collection of evidence must be done within the framework of
the proper investigation proceedings during an ongoing case where the
investigation has not been completed; the Public Prosecutor must rely on
such evidence when issuing his decision with regards to the defendant. Any
evidence obtained in a non-legitimate manner will not be considered as
evidence in rebutting the presumption of innocence.
Is it permissible for the Public Prosecutor to submit new evidence at the trial stage? Page 4
Additionally, any such non-legitimate evidence casts doubt over the
validity of the charges issued and the indictment decision, both of which
were fundamental reasons for the case being brought in front of the
competent court. If evidence constitutes the grounds on which the Bill of
Indictment and the Indictment decision are issued, then what was the
evidence on which the existing Bill of Indictment and the indictment
decision were issued in this case? Also, how will those decisions be affected
in light of the new evidence which the Public Prosecutor purports to
present?
It is important to recall that the trial proceedings require that evidence for
the prosecution be heard first, after which the court decides whether or not
there is a case against the accused. As such it can be inferred that the
assessment made by the court on the criminal case is based, during this
initial stage, on the examination and inspection of the evidence given by
the prosecution.
If the court finds this evidence not sufficient to prove that there is a case
against the accused and not sufficient to rebut the presumption of
innocence, then the court will issue a decision of ‘Not Guilty’ or ‘Not
Responsible’ as the case may be. However, where the court finds the
prosecuting evidence to be sufficient, it will allow the accused the
opportunity to defend himself; this consists of the rebuttal and disproval of
the evidence presented by the prosecutors.
It is definitively shown by the above that the court’s decision on whether or
not there is a sufficient case against the accused is based on the evidence
relied upon in issuing the Bill of Indictment and the Indictment Decision. This
affirms that the prevailing procedural rules in Jordan do not include any
provisions allowing the Public Prosecutor to submit new evidence after the
case has been transferred to the competent court for trial.
Recommended