Many trial reports end with the presumption of innocence. But it is much more than a nice closing sentence.
“Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.” It says so in the Swiss Federal Constitution. This means, among other things, that the state must prove the guilt of the accused and not the other way around. Until this proof succeeds, a person is presumed innocent.
Later, the presumption of innocence also found its way into civil law. This also makes the media responsible. Your reporting of criminal proceedings must conform to the presumption of innocence. It also doesn’t matter whether the person is unknown or known.
In court reporting, the Federal Supreme Court requires in particular:
- a restrained expression
- Accused persons must be made anonymous as a matter of principle
- Assumptions and allegations must be identified as such
- Prejudice – for example, a portrayal of the accused as perpetrators – must be prevented at all costs
How does the media implement the presumption of innocence?
Alain Joset has been a criminal defense attorney for 20 years. In his opinion, the presumption of innocence in the media has degenerated into something cliché: “In criminal proceedings, it usually has no concrete positive effect for my clients.”
In principle, he would like to see better court reporting in Switzerland. Much of the media focused solely on the charges and the punishment that was pronounced. “In my opinion, how a court comes to a verdict comes up far too briefly in the reporting.” This is actually the exciting thing.
“‘The presumption of innocence applies’ is not a clean bill of health.” This is the opinion of Gunhild Godenzi, who teaches criminal and criminal procedural law at the University of Zurich. A mere reference to the presumption of innocence is certainly not sufficient; the entire report must rather conform to it.
She observes the opposite of this in the case of former Raiffeisen boss Pierin Vincenz: “The accused person must not be presented as guilty or as a perpetrator as long as we are still in the criminal proceedings. Prejudices of this kind must have come about here.”
The consequences for the accused are often serious
A media-effective court case is very stressful for the accused, even if the reporting is compliant, says defense attorney Alain Joset. The uncontrollable dynamics that the media-effective procedure entails is a tremendous burden for the accused: “Such a media pillory is usually the main sanction for the accused and often worse than the punishment they get at the end.”
Reporting that violates the presumption of innocence must be even more incriminating.
The unnecessary addition to hedge
The reference to the presumption of innocence is attached in media reports as a safeguard. For factual reporting, however, they are not needed at all.