Viscount sankey said, throughout the web of the english criminal law one golden thread is always. On feb 14th 1935, he was convicted and sentenced to death. The apex court held that the presumption of innocence principle in criminal law was violated. The paper also takes a look into the concept of reasonable doubt, what it constitutes, its lack of a definite.
Click here to obtain a word version of this document presumption of innocence. The trial judge ruled that the burden of proof must fall on woolmington the defendant because the case against him was too strong. Need help with woolmington principle and the whole burden. Woolmington v dpp 1935 ukhl 1 united kingdom house. Its a british law case that established precedent as far as proving a case beyond reasonable doubt. This case considered the issue of the standard of proof required in a criminal trial and whether or not a judge failed to properly direct a jury on the required onus of proof. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. These rules and legal principles ensure that only relevant facts of evidence, which is relevant to the dispute. Justifications for the woolmington principle law general essay. Oxford university press online resource centre chapter 3. The trial judge directed the jury that once the prosecution had shown. Dpp, in which the house of lords first set down the standard of proof as being that the prosecution must show beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence with which he is charged.
Innocence, the burden of proof and fairness in the criminal trial. Also implied statutory exceptions placed by cases such as r v hunt and r v edwards. The woolmington principle primarily asserts that in criminal cases the burden of proof shall lie with the prosecution. To conclude, it may be said that the burden of proof is an obligation of shifting nature and during trial of the case it. I laid down in woolmington v dpp 6 in all criminal proceedings. It has been championed in and by courts as the golden thread of the english legal system, receiving classic formulation in the case of woolmington v dpp. The presumption of innocence was first articulated in the case of woolmington v dpp 1935 ac 462, 461 where. Justifying reverse burdens of proof written by peter coe.
He appealed on the grounds that the trial judge misdirected the jury. Woolmington v dpp 1935 ukhl 1 is a famous house of lords case in english law, where the presumption of innocence was first articulated in the commonwealth history. Throughout web of english criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that is a duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoners guilt. In law the case is remembered for introducing the metaphorical golden thread running through the law relating to the presumption of innocence. Woolmington showed his wife a gun and said he would commit suicide if she left him to live elsewhere. The law of evidence implements rules and legal principles that oversee the proof of facts when it concerns a legal proceedings. The burden of proving this guilt is on the prosecution and it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If the complaint in any case of a simple offence or breach of duty negatives any. In practice, this is then elaborated on by the case of woolmington v. Federico picinali innocence and burdens of proof in. To what extent has the presumption of innocence enunciated in the case woolmington v dpp 1935 ac 462 visavis criminal cases changed in light of the human rights act 1998. The starting point of the analysis, however, must be that the ordinary rule requires that all elements of a criminal offence be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. In the third direction, the trial judge is right with regard to the legal burden of proof when it comes to establishing diminished responsibility, as this is an express statutory exception under section 2 of the homicide act 1957 to the golden thread of english justice identified in woolmington v dpp 1935 ac 462. It was in the famous case of woolmington v director of public prosecutions 1935 ac 462 viscount sankey lc, lord hewart lcj, lord atkin, lord tomlin and lord wright that the burden and standard of proof were set out by the house of lords.
The obligation to prove ones case the burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Its about how the woolmington principle has been lessened in stature compared to today and to critically analyse why. The case reached the house of lords now the supreme court. Throughout web of english criminal law one golden thread. The charged can be proved by burden and standard of proof. Woolmington v dpp burden of proof criminal law uwe. Woolmington v director of public prosecutions woolmington. In english law the principle of placing the burden of proof on the prosecution was acknowledged under the common law, although it was not until woolmington v dpp 1935 that the courts fully acknowledged that this applied to the mens rea as well as the.
This rule is the corollary of the presumption of innocence, set out in the celebrated words of viscount sankey l. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat proof lies on him who. This burden will rest on the party substantially asserting the affirmation of the issue at the start of the case, but as evidence is presented, the burden may shift constantly throughout the case, but also because of presumption of the law, or statutory requirements which sometimes put proof of authority, consent or lawful excuse on the accused. The privy council in this ceylonese case has ruled that the burden of proving accident, provocation, or selfdefence rested upon the accused and could not be construed in the light of a decision in woolmington v director of public prosecutions 1935 ac 462 i. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The impact of the human rights act 1998 on the law of. Woolmington v dpp and until proven guilty arvin has a presumption of innocence as in art 62 echr as burden and high standard of proof is required to prove an assertion that assertion is correct. According to him the factors to be considered is judicial deference, classification of offences, construction of criminal liability. On december 10 woolmington stole a doublebarrelled shotgun and cartridges from his employer, rode a bicycle to his motherinlaws house where he shot and killed. Burden of proof, intention, jury directions, murder woolmington v dpp 1935 ukhl 1 is a landmark house of lords case, where the presumption of innocence was first articulated in the commonwealth. Tindall cj stated in the case of robertson v jackson the words in. Violet woolmington was married to reginald woolmington. On the 22nd of november 1934, 3 months into marriage to kathleen woolmingtion, she left him and went to live with her mother.
What is the significance of the case woolmington v dpp. Woolmington v dpp united kingdom house of lords 23 may, 1935 1935 ukhl 1 1935 ac 462 1935 1 ac 462 1936 25 cr app r 72. Dpp 1935 the accused admitted killing his wife but claimed that the gun had gone off accidentally. Oxford university press online resource centre key facts. Evidence law imposing legal burden of defendant free. If a defendant has to prove their innocence than it would automatically and unconsciously bring up the issue that they were never considered innocent until proven guilty. The impact of the human rights act 1998 on the law of evidence in the united kingdom kacper zajac essay law criminal process, criminology, law enforcement publish your bachelors or masters thesis, dissertation, term paper or essay. The presumption is not that the accused is not guilty. In english law the principle of placing the burden of proof on the prosecution was acknowledged under the common law, although it was not until woolmington v dpp 1935 that the courts fully acknowledged that this applied to the mens rea as well as the actus reus. It is not a burden of proof, it is a burden of raising an issue to the tribunal of fact. Legal burden of proof, criminal law, presumption of innocence pages. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true.
July 10, 2015 to what extent has the presumption of innocence enunciated in the case woolmington v dpp 1935 ac 462 visavis criminal cases changed in light of the human rights act 1998. Attorneygenerals reference no 4 of 2002 2005 stated at p289. Woolmington v dpp wikimili, the best wikipedia reader. In woolmington v dpp, the defendant, reginald woolmington, had separated from his wife, violet woolmington. Meaning of burden of proof and standard of proof, sample. It is a burden of raising, on the evidence in the case, an issue as to the matter in question. Innocence, the burden of proof and fairness in the. Reginald went to visit her in order to persuade her to come back to him. Presumption of innocence legal essays and reflections.
It has been championed in and by courts as the golden thread of the english legal system, receiving classic formulation 1 in the case of woolmington v dpp 2. Now the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. To proof the burden that which party has in criminal trial the accused must satisfy the jury of their innocence or must the prosecution convince the. Could the conviction be quashed on the grounds that the judge said it was for the jury to decide whether woolmington had proved that the evidence was in his favour. The supreme court held that the burden of proof be yond reasonable doubt was not discharged by the prosecution and consequently, quashed the verdict 36 ibid at 471. The presumption of innocence is like a golden thread in. Prior to that case, the burden of proof had been on the accused. In english law the principle of placing the burden of proof on the prosecution was acknowledged under the common law, although it was not until woolmington v dpp 1935 that the courts fully acknowledged that this applied to the mens rea as well as the actus reus a criminal offence may contain several elements and there may be therefore several different allocations of the burden of proof. Presumptions case court statute outcome r v dpp ex parte kebilene 2000 2 ac 326, hl hl prevention of terrorism temporary provisions act 1989 ss.
On november 22, 1934, three months after his marriage to 17yearold violet kathleen woolmington, his wife left him. At common law, a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law woolmington v dpp 1935 ac 462. Thus, the burden of proof in the first instance, which lies on the first party, may be shifted to the other side, by proving contradiction, or facts in his favor. Imposing a legal burden upon a defendant will negate the principle of presumption of innocence. The landmark case of woolmington v dpp17 expounded the standard of proof in criminal cases and upheld the principle that the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. Durston determined the present legislative practice is unjustifiable. Burden of proof, intention, jury directions, murder woolmington v dpp ukhl 1 is a landmark house of lords case, where the presumption of innocence was first articulated in the commonwealth.
Reginald woolmington was a 21yearold farm labourer from castleton, dorset. In 1934, three months after his marriage to 17year old violet kathleen woolmington she left him and went to live with her mother. So far ive figured i have to talk a whole load about the echr with the whole presumption of innocence and what happened in the human rights act. Principles of good legislation reversal of onus of proof 7 version 119 june 20 proof on an accused person to prove an exception applies in relation to an alleged simple offences or breach of duty. At the bristol assizes old version of trial and jury, swift j ruled that the case was so strong against woolmington that the burden of proof was on him to show that the shooting was accidental.
275 913 1325 320 1276 203 1391 1035 1287 1448 754 1436 1531 178 751 1159 733 1220 843 86 41 347 1156 354 938 1416 615 304 454 145 1118 1308 844 1194