Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the confessional statements made by a defendant while they are in police custody and registered by the media are inadmissible in the Court, warning that such confessions provided by the media can undermine the presumption of innocence and irreparably damage the accused and the judicial process.
“A confession made by such a defendant while in custody of a police officer cannot be proven against him unless it is done in the immediate presence of a magistrate,” says the 25 -page sentence created by Judge Athar Minallah.
The bank was listening to a criminal appeal in which the accused, previously sentenced to death by the Court of First Instance and whose conviction was confirmed by the Superior Court based on circumstantial evidence and his televised confession, was acquitted by the SC.
“It is not uncommon for a journalist to receive access to the interview and register a statement from the accused and then disseminate it to obtain information from the public. The news about a crime is always of interest to people, particularly when the case is high profile or the nature of the crime is of interest to the general public. An unusual interest of the public could lead to a judgment of the media and the consequences could be retractable, also only by the public, but also only by the public.
The sentence warned that such judgments could also obstruct justice by allowing unfair sentences.
“The public interest can also be harmed by preventing the real perpetrators of the crime from being accounts and, instead, facilitating the conviction of an innocent person on the basis of a perceived imputation of guilt,” he said.
Judge Minallah pointed out that the media have enormous power to shape the narratives, whether true or false, and this influence can cause irreparable damage to reputation and life not only of the defendants but also of their families.
“The media have the unique power to make heroes or villains, intentionally or involuntarily, and such powers are likely to be abused in a society where the State suppresses freedom of expression and manipulates the media.”
In this context, the trial underlines that an even greater ethical responsibility lies in the media. “A greater responsibility falls to the media to strictly observe high standards of ethical codes to achieve a balance between the rights of the parties involved in criminal procedures and public interest, that is, what information should be disseminated to the general public.”
The sentence indicated that the basis of the criminal justice system was the right to a fair trial, rooted in the presumption of innocence. “The fault can only be proven in a trial before a competent court. The investigation must be carried out strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, that is, the CR.PC and, that also, by an authorized person in this regard.”
Justice Minallah emphasized that researchers must make all efforts to protect the rights of the accused. “Those associated with the research process must exercise extreme caution and attention to safeguard the rights of a defendant: their right to be presumed innocent, the right to privacy, reputation, respect for private life and the life of family members and the right against self -inculting.”
Those involved in criminal investigations should not act so as to create or support the perceptions of guilt. “It is an onerous obligation of investigators, prosecutors and other persons associated with the research task to avoid the creation of perception and bias by acting in any way that drives the fault.”
The court also asked the media to defend the dignity of the defendants and victims.
“It is also the responsibility of the media, in any way, to respect the rights of a defendant, as well as the victims, while reporting issues related to criminal procedures. A center of attention of disproportionate and excessive media and the way in which it is presented is likely to create perceptions of guilt and influence the public, as well as those who are associated with criminal procedures.”
In this sense, Justice Minallah acknowledged that judicial officers are not immune. “Judicial officers are also human and, in this era of information and technology, it would not be a mistake to assume that they can also be susceptible to being influenced by the coverage of the media. This is a universal phenomenon.”
