Do courts not take the presumption of innocence seriously?

On the afternoon of July 28, the Trial Council sentenced 54 defendants in the “Rescue Flight” case. Among them, the life sentence of defendant Hoang Van Hung (former Head of Department 5, Security Investigation Agency of the Ministry of Public Security) received special attention from the public.

Many people agree that the sentence for Hoang Van Hung is the right person for the right crime, demonstrating the strictness of the law. However, there are also opinions that the sentence is not objective and the court's decision is not based on the principle of presumption of innocence.

Cong Thuong Newspaper had an interview with lawyer Nguyen Trong Hoang (Dong Tam Law Firm, Hanoi Bar Association) to better understand this issue.

- Regarding the "Rescue Flight" case, there are currently many conflicting opinions about the life sentence for defendant Hoang Van Hung. How do lawyers evaluate this verdict of the Trial Council?

From the "Rescue Flight" case, it can be seen that the defendant Hoang Van Hung is an investigator with a deep understanding of the law and an experienced person in litigation activities, especially as the Head of Department 5, the main investigator of the case. Therefore, in the Q&A and debate sessions at the trial, Hung demonstrated the qualifications of a seasoned former investigator and made those interested in following the trial pay special attention.

Lawyer Nguyen Trong Hoang, Dong Tam Law Firm, Hanoi Bar Association

It was thought that this would make Hung acquitted, or at least the prosecution agency did not have enough grounds to confirm that Hung received the briefcase with 450,000 USD, thereby having lighter penalties than the prosecution's penalty framework (Clause 4, Article 174 of the 2015 Penal Code, amended in 2017, with a penalty of 12 to 20 years or life imprisonment).

However, Hoang Van Hung was sentenced to the highest penalty of the prosecution - life imprisonment. This demonstrates the strictness of the law and also affirms that the prosecution agency has enough basis and grounds to convict Hoang Van Hung and of course, Hoang Van Hung's sharp "argument" before the jury, in the court, was counterproductive. The sentence really convinced experts.

- Many opinions say that the Trial Panel is accusing Hoang Van Hung without evidence or with vague evidence. According to the lawyer, what evidence in the case can the prosecution base on to accuse Hoang Van Hung?

According to Article 15 of the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code, determining the truth of the case: “The accused has the right but is not obliged to prove his innocence. Within the scope of his duties and powers, the competent authority conducting the proceedings must apply legal measures to determine the truth of the case in an objective, comprehensive and complete manner, clarify the evidence of guilt and evidence of innocence, aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the criminal responsibility of the accused”.

It can be simply understood that whether the accused (defendant) pleads guilty or not, the prosecuting agency must still be responsible for carrying out activities according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to initiate, investigate, prosecute, and try cases to ensure objectivity, the right person, the right crime, and the right law.

In court, defendant Hoang Van Hung repeatedly pleaded innocent and denied the crime.

Suppose, let's put the problem in reverse, if defendant Hoang Van Hung had admitted his guilt from the time of indictment, investigation, prosecution, and trial that the briefcase contained 450,000 USD and the prosecution agency based on Hung's admission of guilt to prosecute, try, and sentence, what would happen?

Clause 2, Article 98 of the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code stipulates: “ The confession of the accused can only be considered as evidence if it is consistent with other evidence of the case. The confession of the accused cannot be used as the sole evidence to charge or convict .”

Thus, in this case, to convict defendant Hoang Van Hung, the prosecution agency had to painstakingly collect evidence such as security cameras recording Mr. Hung receiving the briefcase, the "briefcase" containing money; backing up the phones of defendant Tuan and defendant Hang contacting Mr. Hung; conducting an investigation experiment, recreating the scene as the investigation agency needed 450,000 USD in real in a "briefcase" of the same type to see if it could hold enough and whether a person of normal health like Mr. Hung could carry that "briefcase".

In particular, the statements of defendant Tuan and defendant Hang, along with the "cash flow" (including the first amount of 350,000 USD delivered at the private home of the former Deputy Director of Hanoi Police) coming in and out of those defendants, do they really match their statements? Even after receiving the "briefcase", we have to "dig out" where that money was hidden, whether it was invested in buying real estate, or what assets Hung had...

This shows that there is other material evidence strong enough for the prosecution agency to convict defendant Hung, not simply the statements of defendant Tuan, defendant Hang, or general, vague, and unrelated evidence.

- Some opinions say that the Trial Panel cannot try and convict a person based on inner belief but must have clear, valid, legally collected evidence. If it has to speculate, the only speculation accepted by the law is the speculation of innocence. What is the lawyer's opinion on this issue?

Not only in Vietnam, the history of criminal proceedings in the world has had wrongful convictions of the century. Therefore, the principle of presumption of innocence has been considered an overarching and consistent principle in procedural activities in countries around the world and in Vietnam.

Article 13 of the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code of Vietnam stipulates the presumption of innocence as follows: “ When there is insufficient and it is impossible to clarify the basis for charging or convicting according to the order and procedures prescribed by this Code, the competent authority or person conducting the proceedings must conclude that the accused person is not guilty .”

Lawyers said that the penalties are not only a deterrent, but also demonstrate the leniency of the law.

Returning to the case of defendant Hoang Van Hung, although Hung insisted on his innocence, claiming that the “briefcase” contained only 4 bottles of wine, not 450,000 USD, and considered that the most reasonable statement, because no one could see what was in the “briefcase”. In fact, as the judge presiding over the trial argued, “ Who would give wine to someone who had just been critically ill? Who would put wine in a “briefcase” to give away? ”

When comparing the statements, or in litigation activities called "confrontation", it is clear that the statements of defendant Tuan and defendant Hang will have more basis and credibility than the statements of defendant Hung, not to mention other material evidence proving the opposite of defendant Hung's statements.

- In addition to the life sentence for defendant Hoang Van Hung, what is the lawyer's opinion on the sentence for the defendants and the case as a whole, especially the impact of the case on society?

Through following the proceedings of the trial, questioning, debate, litigation, and sentencing of the "Rescue Flight" case, I realized that the specific sentence of each defendant was carefully considered by the Trial Panel.

The aggravating and mitigating circumstances of criminal responsibility, circumstances, and the level of criminal behavior of each defendant, and the objective and comprehensive consideration of the case as well as each defendant, so that the Trial Panel can have the right sentence for the right person, the right crime, and the right law.

Besides, it shows that the penalties are not only a deterrent, but also demonstrate the leniency of the law, ensuring that the purpose of the penalty is not only to punish but also to educate the offender to become a useful person for society and also meet the expectations of society, the Party, and the State for major corruption cases such as this "Rescue Flight" case.

Thank you very much, lawyer!

(Source: congthuong.vn)

Useful
Emotion
Creative
Unique
Wrath