The spirit of the law, its perception, and its practical application are often very different things. The phrase “innocent until proven guilty” describes the presumption of innocence—a fundamental legal right ensuring that every person accused of a crime is considered innocent until the prosecution proves their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Yet, despite this widely understood principle, many are asking: why has Thomas Partey been denied a visa to enter Canada for the World Cup, especially when he is presumed innocent?
Partey, the Ghanaian international midfielder currently with Villarreal, was charged in July 2025 by London’s Metropolitan Police with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault. He pleaded not guilty in September 2025. In February 2026, he was charged with two additional counts of rape, to which he also pleaded not guilty. He remains awaiting trial and has not been convicted of any offence.
Nevertheless, his visa application to Canada was refused, reportedly because Canadian immigration law allows for the refusal of entry to individuals who have been charged with serious criminal offences, even before any conviction is secured.
To understand this, consider the following: I am currently completing a UK visa application for a client. The attached screenshot shows some of the questions asked by immigration authorities:
“At any time have you ever had any of the following, in the UK or in another country? An arrest or charge for which you are currently on, or awaiting trial?”
Why do immigration departments and visa decision-makers ask this question? They ask it because the information is relevant to their decision-making process. A pending charge is a factor they are entitled to consider. If it did not matter, they would not ask.
So, how does this practice not conflict with the principle of presumption of innocence? The answer lies in the distinction between the spirit of the law and its daily application.
The presumption of innocence is a rule that governs criminal proceedings. It dictates how a court must treat an accused person during a criminal trial. It does not, however, bind immigration authorities when they assess visa applications. Immigration law operates under a different framework, often prioritising national security, public safety, and the integrity of borders. In many jurisdictions, including Canada and the UK, a pending criminal charge is sufficient grounds to refuse entry or a visa—regardless of whether the individual has been convicted.
Therefore, the next time you hear someone assert “innocent until proven guilty” as an absolute shield against all forms of state scrutiny, remember: while that is the spirit of the criminal law, its application in other contexts—such as immigration—may be far different.
–Chris-Vincent Agyapong
