Inadequate investigation by police authorities

By Alexandros Clerides

 The background of the discussion is the fact that a police interrogator should act in a manner that excludes the possibility of fabricating testimony and his impartial conduct should also exclude any suspicion as to the authenticity of the interrogation.

The investigative process must be honest, fair, impartial and conducted in accordance with the law. The purpose of the interrogation should be to present the truth before a competent court and not solely evidence to support the conviction of the suspected defendant.

In the event of a flawed or inadequate investigative process the court should evaluate the testimony with suspicion and play an active role in finding the truth. The imperative for fair interrogation stems from the application of the rules of the Rule of Law.

But the question that arises in every case before a court is whether in any particular case the failure to carry out such an examination creates even a potential risk of an unfair verdict or leaves a gap in the essential facts of the prosecution’s case or adversely affects the defence of the accused to the degree and point that the person has been deprived of the right to have a fair trial.

The right to a fair trial also extends to the investigation stage and, in the appropriate case, serious omissions by the investigative authorities – and their involvement in an investigation despite the contrary instructions of the Complaints Review Authority may lead to the acquittal of the accused where these omissions have put the accused in a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis the prosecution, with the burden of proof that the accused was indeed placed in a disadvantageous position to be heard by the Defence, on the balance of probabilities.

It is therefore on the shoulders of the defence to indicate, both at the stage where testimony is presented and at the final stage of the proceedings before the court, the ways in which the defence was affected due to the omissions that occurred during the conduct of the investigative work and the effect these omissions had on his case.

In fact, in the event that the suspect/accused has given his own version from the beginning of the investigation of the case, and that version was not investigated or the investigators did not bother to investigate essential aspects of the case that touch and affect the very components of proof of the case, then in theory there is the necessary violation of the right to a fair trial. In this case the courts should discharge the persons facing prosecution since the case now has a real risk of an unjust verdict or leaves a gap in the essential facts of the prosecution’s case.

Alexandros Clerides is a lawyer at Phoebus Ch. Clerides & Associates Ltd