ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has ruled that confessional statements made by an accused while in police custody and recorded by the media are inadmissible in court, warning that such media-facilitated confessions can undermine the presumption of innocence and irreparably damage the accused and the judicial process.
“A confession made by such an accused while in custody of a police officer cannot be proved against him/her unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate,” states the 25-page judgment authored by Justice Athar Minallah.
The bench was hearing a criminal appeal in which the accused, earlier sentenced to death by the trial court and whose conviction was upheld by the high court based on circumstantial evidence and his televised confession, was acquitted by the SC.
“It is not uncommon for a reporter to be given access to interview and record a statement of the accused and then disseminate it for information of the public. The news regarding a crime is always of interest to the people, particularly when the case is of 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 media trial and the consequences could be irretrievable, not only for the accused but the victims as well.”
The judgment warned that such trials could also obstruct justice by enabling wrongful convictions.
“The public interest may also be harmed by preventing the actual perpetrators of the crime from being held to account and instead facilitating the conviction of an innocent person on the basis of a perceived imputation of guilt,” it said.
Justice Minallah noted that media holds enormous power to shape narratives – whether true or false – and this influence can wreak irreparable harm on the reputation and lives of not only the accused but also their families.
“The media has the unique power to make heroes or villains, intentionally or unintentionally, and such powers are susceptible to be abused in a society where the State suppresses freedom of expression and manipulates the media.”
In such a context, the judgment underscores that an even greater ethical responsibility lies on the media. “A greater responsibility rests with the media to strictly observe high standards of ethical codes in order to strike a balance between the rights of parties involved in criminal proceedings and the public interest i.e. what information should be disseminated to the general public.”
The judgment noted that the bedrock of the criminal justice system was the right to a fair trial, rooted in the presumption of innocence. “The guilt can only be proved in a trial before a competent court. The investigation ought to be conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law i.e the Cr.P.C. and, that too, by a person authorised in this regard.”
Justice Minallah stressed that every effort must be made by investigators to protect the rights of the accused. “Extreme caution and care are required to be exercised by those associated with the process of investigation to safeguard the rights of an accused – his or her right to be presumed innocent, the right to privacy, reputation, respect for private life and the lives of the family members and the right against self-incrimination.”
Those involved in criminal investigations must not act in ways that create or support perceptions of guilt. “It is an onerous obligation of the investigators, prosecutors and other persons associated with the task of investigation to prevent the creation of perception and bias by acting in any manner likely to impute guilt.”
The court also called on media to uphold the dignity of both the accused and victims.
“It is also the responsibility of the media, in any form, to respect the rights of an accused as well as the victims while reporting on matters relating to criminal proceedings. A disproportionate and excessive media spotlight and the manner in which it is presented is likely to create perceptions of guilt and influence the public as well as those who are associated with the criminal proceedings.”
In this regard, Justice Minallah acknowledged that judicial officers are not immune. “The judicial officers are also humans and in this age of information and technology it would not be wrong to assume that they may also be susceptible to be influenced by the media coverage. This is a universal phenomenon.”
