There might not be a ministry for Human Rights anymore ? officially at least ? but this doesn?t mean human rights have been completely disregarded. A review paper of the Law Reform Commission (LRC), published a few days ago, on the ?Criminal Justice System and the Rights of an Accused Person?, sheds light on those rights that are regularly trampled on but that are nonetheless deeply ingrained in our Constitution. Judgments of the Privy Council and of the Supreme Court have helped to shed light on those rights, says the LRC, chaired by Guy Ollivry, but the LRC believed that it is up to the legislature to take legislative measures to give effect to those rights granted by the Constitution. Below is a summary of those rights.

● <B>Right of a person charged with a criminal offence to be afforded a fair and public hearing, within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial court established by law. </B>

A fair hearing means that an accused should be afforded fair and impartial inquiries by the police as they enquire into allegations made against an accused party. But the LRC points out that a fair enquiry may lead to an unfair trial. So, the two notions are distinct. A fair hearing would entail that a jury/magistrate hears all the evidence, that reliability and veracity of witnesses are assessed.

● <B>Reasonable time</B>

The concept of ?reasonable time? is to be determined by the judge or magistrate as our law, like the law in England, does not, as a general rule, set any time limit for a criminal procedure to be started.

● <B>Independent and impartial court established by law. </B>

This is why it is important that ?justice is manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done?. According to the LRC, ?if there is any danger of substantial bias likely, even unconsciously, to influence a magistrate, he ought not to sit?.

● <B>Right of a person charged with a criminal offence to be informed as soon as reasonably practicable, in a language that he understands and, in detail, of the nature of the offence. </B>

The counsel representing a person has no doubt the duty to inform that person of what the State holds against him but according to the LRC, the court is responsile for ensuring that the accused person understands exactly what it is that he is accused of. Otherwise this would lead to an unfair trial.

● <B>Right of the person charged with a criminal offence to be judged only in accordance with the substantive law in force at the time of the offence. </B>

The Constitution prohibits the application of retrospective criminal legislation so that no person should be held guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission that did not, at the time it took place, constitute an offence.

● <B>Right of a person to be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty or has pleaded guilty. </B>

The principle is a fundamental one and it is worth noting that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor; in other words, the State has to prove that an accused person is guilty of a crime. That proof should, in criminal cases, be beyond reasonable doubt.

● <B> Right of a person to be permitted to defend himself in person. </B>

An accused party is presumed to be aware of his right to defend himself in person or by counsel. And in case he decides to avail himself of this opportunity, it is the court?s duty to offer him a certain amount of guidance in order to help him not to miss important opportunities which are open to him, under the existing procedure, to help him challenge the evidence of the prosecution or to present his own defence.

To note also that an accused has the right to legal representation of his choice. But in certain circumstances, if counsel is absent in court, the magistrate could decide not to grant a postponement on those grounds alone if it is held that the accused is making an ?abuse? of his right rather than ?use? of the right?

● <B> Right of an accused to be tried in his presence </B>

The Constitution provides that, except with his own consent, the trial of every person charged with a criminal offence, shall not take place in his absence.

<I>?A fair hearing would entail that a jury/magistrate hears allthe evidence,that reliability and veracity of witnesses are assessed.?</I>

● <B>Right to remain silent</B>

The courts have held that the right of an accused to silence, whether from the beginning of his arrest at the enquiry stage or throughout the proceedings at the trial stage, is a fundamental principle of our criminal law. When an accused waives that constitutional right to silence, it becomes a confession and according the court, ?a suspect?s won confession is probably the most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him, the most knowledgeable and unimpeachable source of information about his past conduct??

● <B> Right not to be tried a second time for the same offence</B>

This is called ?autrefois acquit? and the principle is quite simple ? the law does not permit a man to be twice in peril of being convicted of the same offence. What is essential to this plea of ?autrefois acquit? is proof of a verdict of acquittal of the offence alleged.