I do not doubt that prosecutorial decisions are not taken lightly. However, I disagree with the view: 'Remember that not being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A is guilty does not mean that he is innocent.

'He may be guilty in fact, but innocent in law because the evidence was not there. The question of compensation should be seen in this light.'

I respectfully caution against the perils of reasoning backwards. In reasoning backwards, the logic may appear impeccable, but the premise from which it starts is not necessarily sound.

The flaw in the hypothetical example given there is revealed by taking another: B did nothing to V. V alleged molest. There are no witnesses and no physical evidence. B is also acquitted. If not by relying on evidence, how can any legal system distinguish A from B?

The philosophy behind our legal system is that generally, it is preferable to let off a guilty person than to punish an innocent one. This is why the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The reality is that a person charged with a crime is immediately punished by having to incur substantial legal costs to defend himself regardless of whether he is guilty 'in fact'. Spending $x in legal fees and being fined $x is the same financially.

The question our society has to ask is, 'Is this satisfactory?' If it is acceptable that innocent people are sometimes punished, then nothing needs be done.

Otherwise, unless publicly funded legal defence is available, the question of compensation must arise. How then to distinguish guilt from innocence?

The criminal court has already pronounced its position. If this is unsatisfactory in determining innocence for this purpose, what standard of proof is?

Should it be balance of probabilities, or must someone prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt? Is it necessary then to have two trials?

Will possible conflicting verdicts cause public confusion and erode public confidence? Should we even have different shades of innocence (or guilt)?

Ultimately, does it square with the philosophy that an innocent person should not be punished?

These are not easy questions. However, the problem will not be addressed until the right questions are asked.

In my view, whether someone is innocent 'in fact' as opposed to 'in law' is not the right question.

Cheung Phei Chiet