You Think You Know the Law? Think Again: Criminal Law Myths Explained – Part 1
Criminal law is an area in which confident opinions often travel faster than facts. Many people believe they understand the law based on something they heard, saw on television, read online, or picked up in conversation. In reality, the law is often far more complex, and widely held beliefs are not always correct. What is commonly accepted as “law”, is in many instances, a misconception.
This article examines seven common criminal law myths and the reality behind them.
- Myth: If I did not pull the trigger or use the knife, I cannot be guilty of murder.
Not always true. A person may still be guilty of murder if they intentionally assisted, encouraged, or participated in the offence, even if they did not inflict the fatal injury themselves. Mere presence at the scene or awareness that violence might occur is not enough. Case law has clarified that the prosecution must prove intentional participation in the crime.
- Myth: If the drugs or gun were not found on me, the police cannot charge me.
This is a common misunderstanding. The law recognises two types of possession: actual possession, where the item is physically on you, and constructive possession, where the item is in a place over which you have control and you are aware of it. For example, drugs or a firearm found in a vehicle, bag, room, or house may still constitute possession if evidence shows you knew of the item and had control over it. The issue is whether the prosecution can prove knowledge and control.
- Myth: If I remain silent, it means I’m guilty; If I speak, it doesn’t ensure my release.
Neither is true. In Trinidad and Tobago, a person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty and has the constitutional right to remain silent. Silence cannot be used to suggest guilt or wrongdoing. Because the burden of proving guilt lies with the prosecution, who must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. A such, this right extends beyond the police station and continues throughout the trial. At no point is the accused required to speak, and they are protected against self-incrimination.
On the other hand, providing a statement to law enforcement during an investigation does not ensure the immediate release of a suspect from custody. Police Officers could potentially promise release upon receiving a signed statement, but this can serve as a tactical method to prompt a person to speak against their own interests and incriminate themselves. Anything you say can be used as evidence against you, and whether you are released or detained depends on the facts of the case, the seriousness of the offence, and the discretion of the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
- Myth: Being a first-time offender means I will get off lightly.
Being a first-time offender may work in your favour, but it does not provide immunity. Lack of prior convictions is often treated as evidence of good character but it is not a defence. Once found guilty, having no prior record is only one factor the court considers in sentencing. Counsel may rely on it to seek leniency, but it does not shield a person from the consequences of criminal conduct.
- Myth: If I am found not guilty, I can automatically sue the State.
Not true. Many assume a not-guilty verdict automatically entitles them to compensation, especially after lengthy periods on remand. Trinidad and Tobago has no constitutional right to a speedy trial, only a fair trial. To bring a claim, a person must prove the case was initiated without proper basis, brought maliciously, and caused actual harm. Acquittal alone does not create a claim, and compensation is only possible in limited circumstances, such as malicious prosecution or a breach of constitutional rights.
- Myth: If a witness does not come to court, the case will be thrown out.
A case does not automatically collapse if a witness fails to appear. In many instances, the matter can proceed, and a person may still be found guilty. The law allows for reliance on prior statements if the witness cannot be found, is abroad, ill, afraid due to threats, or deceased. Whether these statements are admitted depends on the facts and the court’s assessment of the interests of justice.
- Myth: You can’t be found guilty if there’s no physical evidence.
Convictions do not always require physical evidence such as a weapon, DNA, or fingerprints. A person can be convicted on credible witness testimony alone, if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence i.e. indirect evidence allowing the court to infer facts, can also establish guilt. For example, a combination of witness statements, behaviour before or after the offence or whether the Accused had motive can be used together to determine “guilt”. The law considers the totality of the evidence, not just physical proof. While one piece of circumstantial evidence might be weak on its own, a “chain” of multiple pieces can be powerful enough to secure a conviction. Even without direct evidence, a conviction can be secured if the supporting facts establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Submitted by: Michelle Gonzalez Public Defender II Senior
& Makeda Derrick Public Defender Entry
Public Defenders’ Department
Legal Aid and Advisory Authority,
23 Stanmore Avenue, Port of Spain.
Contact: 638-5222
Email: [email protected]
Website: laaa.org.tt