'...At the end of the prosecution's case, the defence will often submit that there is no case to answer... Only if the judge considers... that there is a case to answer will the defence be called. Acquittal at the end of the trial does not mean that the prosecution should not have been brought. Where a case turns on one person's word against another's, very often the trial judge or the appeal court may consider that it is unsafe to convict... As long as a reasonable doubt remains, the accused is entitled to be acquitted, even if the judge thinks that he is probably guilty. When reporting an acquittal, this nuance is often not appreciated.

'To make things clear, take the following hypothetical: A molests V. There are no witnesses and no physical evidence. It is V's word against A's... What then should the prosecution do? Should they decline to prosecute A? It is the duty of the prosecution... to bring the case to trial so that a judge can consider whether or not V's testimony is credible. To do otherwise would be to let molesters off. V will feel aggrieved that the justice system has let her down. If after a trial the judge decides that there is a reasonable doubt, he will acquit A. This does not imply that he thinks that A did not do it; indeed, the judge might feel that A did in fact commit the offence, but in the absence of corroboration he must give the benefit of the doubt to A.

'Prosecutorial decisions are not taken lightly. When cases turn on witness evidence, credibility, consistency and corroboration are key considerations. 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...'

Cheng Howe Ming
for Public Affairs Unit
Attorney-General's Chambers