Presumption Of Innocence In Woolmington V. DPP (1991)

836 Words4 Pages
The question requires one to discuss as to what extent has the “Presumption of Innocence” as articulated by Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] , has changed in light of Human Rights Act [HRA] 1998.
Woolmington v DPP is a landmark House of Lords [ HOL] case where the Presumption of Innocence was first articulated # . In delivering his judgement for a unanimous Court, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread’ speech . ‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to... the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained .#
…show more content…
Evidential burden has been portrayed as the commitment to appear, if called upon to do so as such, there is an adequate evidence to raise an issue with regards to the presence of fact in issue, due respect being had to the standard of proof requested of the person under such obligation . Wherein a legal burden is one which describes the standard that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must satisfy to have that fact legally established. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant's guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable

More about Presumption Of Innocence In Woolmington V. DPP (1991)

Open Document