Burden of Proof
As stated by Lord Chancellor Viscount Samkey[1], it is essential that the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant in criminal cases. Hence, the burden of prove solely lies in the hands of the prosecution. The obvious reason to this is because everyone is entitled to a fair trial with a general presumption of innocence until proven against.
The case of Woolmington v DPP clarified several uncertainties in regards to this area of the law. Here, Reginald Woolmington’s wife left him to live with her mother three months after their marriage. After sometime, Woolmington sawed off the barrel of a double barrel shotgun, cycled to the house his wife was living and shot her. She died and Woolmington claimed the incident was an accident and he only wanted to scare her by convincing her that he was going to kill himself. However, he was charged with murder.
The jury was directed by the judge to acquit the defendant if there was reasonable doubt in their mine and they were directed to convict if they had no doubt if the defendant had killed intentionally. The judge directed the jury correctly but however, the jury was unable to agree on it.
However, in the trial, the jury was wrongly directed when it was told that in a case where murder has already been proven, any defenses, excuses or possible justification the defendant wishes to rely on must be proven by none other than the defendant itself, hence, placing the burden of prove on the defendant. Hence, there was a common presumption that malice was aforethought unless the defendant could place evidence to differ. Justice Swift quoted that this was the “law of this country for all time since we had law”.[2] He added that a person, who had been deemed for murder, has the burden of proof to show that what occurred was less than murder. Hence, Woolmington was found to be guilty for murder.
Even though Woolmington’s attempt to appeal on the basis that the jury was misdirected by the judge failed,
The case of Woolmington v DPP clarified several uncertainties in regards to this area of the law. Here, Reginald Woolmington’s wife left him to live with her mother three months after their marriage. After sometime, Woolmington sawed off the barrel of a double barrel shotgun, cycled to the house his wife was living and shot her. She died and Woolmington claimed the incident was an accident and he only wanted to scare her by convincing her that he was going to kill himself. However, he was charged with murder.
The jury was directed by the judge to acquit the defendant if there was reasonable doubt in their mine and they were directed to convict if they had no doubt if the defendant had killed intentionally. The judge directed the jury correctly but however, the jury was unable to agree on it.
However, in the trial, the jury was wrongly directed when it was told that in a case where murder has already been proven, any defenses, excuses or possible justification the defendant wishes to rely on must be proven by none other than the defendant itself, hence, placing the burden of prove on the defendant. Hence, there was a common presumption that malice was aforethought unless the defendant could place evidence to differ. Justice Swift quoted that this was the “law of this country for all time since we had law”.[2] He added that a person, who had been deemed for murder, has the burden of proof to show that what occurred was less than murder. Hence, Woolmington was found to be guilty for murder.
Even though Woolmington’s attempt to appeal on the basis that the jury was misdirected by the judge failed,