Ans. The Woolmington principle is often considered to be one of the foundations upon which the law of evidence and its rules operate. In order to assess the extent to which the principle has been eroded, an examination of the rule’s implications and principal justifications shall be made. This shall be followed by surveying the law for instances where the principle has been departed from in order to confirm whether such departures actually do breach the purported justifications for the rule. Additionally, a broader perspective shall be laid out to determine whether apparent departures actually amount to ” erosion” or are in fact part of the very rule itself. Finally, an attempt will be made at reconciling the wealth of case-law on the Woolmington princple to see whether clear principles and/or exceptions can be discerned. The Woolmington principle primarily asserts that in criminal cases the burden of proof shall lie with the prosecution. 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]. Viscount Sankey put it in the following words that surface time and again in judgments and journals: ” 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…”[3]. In essence, this establishes that the burden of proof shall lie with the prosecution to prove its case; in the same case the standard of proof required from the prosecution was also reiterated – i. e. one satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The Woolmington principle is more or less ubiquitous insofar as its content is found in almost every jurisdiction that respects one’s right to a fair trial. Two connected points must be stressed at the outset: firstly, even in Woolmington v DPP it was acknowledged that there were situations where the burden of proof may in fact lie on the defendant[4]; and secondly, instances of departure from the Woolmington principle in and of themselves do not necessarily mean that the principle has ” eroded”; if the principle’s underlying rationale remains in tact and is seen to be observed in criminal procedure, one cannot conclusively say that the Woolmington principle has been eroded. Keeping this in mind, there are a number of justifications for the application of the Woolmington principle. The most significant aspect of criminal law that it underlines is that of the presumption of innocence, often described as the bedrock of English criminal procedure: the accused shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty by the prosecution. This remains true especially after the enforcement of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 whereby Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is now part of the considerations that weigh on a judge hearing a criminal case and directing the jury on points of law. One of the most eloquent justifications for the presumption of innocence was provided by Lord Bingham when he said: ” The underlying rationale of the presumption of innocence…is that it is repugnant to ordinary notions of fairness for a prosecutor to accuse an accused of a crime and for the accused then to be required to disprove the accusation on pain of conviction and punishment if he fails to do so.”[5]This dicta provides a compelling precursory justification for the Woolmington principle and it should be borne in mind whenever one faces what are now becoming notorious ” exceptions” to the same. The justifications for the presumption of innocence thus translate into the justifications for maintaining the burden of proof on the prosecution. In this respect Stumer argues that the presumption of innocence serves a dual purpose: the first is to protect innocent people from unsafe and wrongful convictions; and the second is to ensure the rule of law, which can be reduced to the proposition that ” no one should be convicted unlawfully”[6]. Abandoning the presumption of innocence jeopardizes the rule of law and Stumer makes a very convincing argument to this effect. Equally importantly – particularly in the European context – the presumption of innocence is a principal tenet of an individual’s right to a fair trial. Article 6 of the ECHR – which expressly recognizes the presumption of innocence – has become a major source of case-law with respect to individuals challenging the UK in Strasbourg in a number of instances when the presumption has been done away with by virtue of a reverse onus. Were the position otherwise, criminal law would become procedurally odious. It stands to reason that whenever an individual is charged, it is the accuser who can reasonably be expected to back the charge with positive evidence. As opposed to the individual, the state is far better equipped with resources to collect and process evidence. In light of these considerations, it makes good sense to adhere to the Woolmington principle at least as a starting and default position (and a factor borne in mind throughout as Viscount Sankey’s suggested ‘ golden thread’)[7]. Yet, the law has developed in a manner whereby one can point to instances where the presumption has been compromised. As pointed out earlier, it has been accepted that although the general rule requires the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt, the onus may be reversed if the defendant pleads the defence of insanity or if there is an express or implied statutory exception requiring the defendant to prove something[8]. The former is the only common law exception to the Woolmington principle while the latter has led to some insightful case-law over the past decade. It is crucial to note though that the standard of proof expected from the defendant in cases of reverse burdens of proof is that of a balance of probabilities[9]which is a lower standard than what the prosecution has to discharge. It bears to note another cautionary aspect of the Woolmington principle. At times all that is ” reversed” in terms of the burden of proof is the ” evidential” burden as opposed to the legal burden. It is submitted that an evidential burden of proof – i. e. one that merely requires the accused to adduce sufficient evidence to raise an issue regarding the existence of a matter[10]- ought not to be viewed as an erosion of the Woolmington principle. This is because unlike the legal burden, the evidential burden does not carry with it the assumption of the same sort of risk of an unsafe/wrongful conviction as the legal burden. When does erosion occur? For one, it arguably started to occur the moment the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) accepted that Article 6(2) of the ECHR does not involve an absolute right[11]. The presumption of innocence can indeed be qualified provided that the reverse onus was in pursuance of a legitimate aim and proportional to the achievement of that legitimate aim. Both Strasbourg and English courts seem to accept this criteria for qualifying the presumption of innocence, although the latter have had considerable difficulty in applying this criteria in a systematic manner as was evinced by the mounting tension between the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords[12]at one stage. Furthermore, the courts seemed satisfied in resolving to the position that each case of reverse onus would be treated individually, without any general rule as such[13]. The prima facie justification for having the defendant bear the burden of proving the defence of insanity is on the basis that for the defense to be valid, the mens rea or relevant mental state of the defendant has to be established. Having the prosecution establish the defendant’s mental state – which by its very nature is a factor that is best known to the defendant and the defendant alone – would not only be impractical, it would be counterintuitive[14]. Section 2(2) of the Homicide Act 1957 creates an express statutory exception where, if the defendant chooses to take the defense of diminished responsibility on a charge for murder, the legal burden for establishing it rests upon him. The same rational for the reversal of the burden of proving on insanity applies here since diminished responsibility can only be established by proving the defendants mens rea[15]. When it comes to potentially erosive statutory provisions, section 101 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 is the first to appear as an issue: it states that where the defendant seeks to rely on any ” exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification…. the burden of proving the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification shall be on him…” The ramifications of this provision are manifold; it extended the application of imposing a reverse burden of proof by creating a category of implied statutory exceptions. It appears that Parliament’s instructions are inconsistent with the Woolmington principle since the wording of section 101 appears to encourage the usage of a reverse burden of proof as the norm rather than the exception. Furthermore, under section 87 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in relation to an offence of driving otherwise than in accordance with a license the prosecution need only prove that the defendant was driving a motor vehicle on the road and the defendant must then prove that he had a valid license[16]. In accordance with section 155(1) of the Factories Act 1961, a workplace should be as far as is reasonable be made safe for the people working in it. On an interpretation of the phrase ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’, the House of Lords interpreted it to mean that the plaintiff had to prove that the place was not safe and the defendant had to prove that it was not reasonable to take any more precautions[17]. These are just two examples from a number of rulings where courts have upheld reversed burdens of proof by statutory implication. In R v Hunt[18]the House of Lords expressly stated that in certain circumstances, a statute could imply an exception and stated when this would be done. They stated that if on a linguistic construction of a statute it does not clearly indicate on whom the burden should lie, the court in construing it may have regard to matters of policy, including practical considerations and the ease in which either of the parties could discharge the burden. This significantly reduced the applicability of the Woolmington principle insofar as the courts assumed greater discretion by effectively ruling that wherever Parliament’s intentions as to who should bear the burden of proof are unclear, the courts would decide where it lies. The category of potential exceptions has been expanded to a level where the principle/presumption has arguably lost its status from being the ” golden thread” to more like a guideline. In Attorney-General’s Reference (No 4 of 2002) [2005] the House of Lords looked into the compatibility of reverse burdens in light of the ECHR. There was emphasis laid on the nature of Article 6(2) as incorporating a right that could be qualified. It was also stated that the ECHR required a balance to be struck between the rights of an individual and the interests of the wider community. It, however, did aim to control the scenarios in which the presumption was not applied and did this by stating that for a reverse burden to be legitimate there must be a compelling reason justifying why it is fair and reasonable to deny the accused person the protection of the presumption of innocence. Their Lordships also mentioned a number of factors to be taken into account in concluding whether a reverse burden was justified. These included the severity of the sanction, the practicalities of evidence and parliament’s intention in enactment of the statute. In its 11th report, the Criminal Law Revision Committee was strongly of the opinion that whenever the burden of proof is placed upon the accused it should be an evidential burden instead of a legal burden. Whilst in initial cases the Court disputed this view and refused to put it to practice, in Attorney-General’s Reference (No 4 of 2002) [2005], it was held that where the reverse burden infringes article 6 (2) only an evidential burden should be placed upon the accused. In light of the sanctity of the Woolmington principle, this is a welcome decision. Finally, as discussed above the individual in a majority of cases lacks the resources to process the evidence, making it easier for the prosecution to bear the burden for these[19]. If a reverse burden of proof is borne by the defendant, it serves as creating a presumption of guilt to fill the void left by the presumption of innocence. This is inconsistent with the right to a fair trial, against the rule of law and incompatible with the ECHR. This is not to say that the Woolmington principle does not have any disadvantages. It does appear that in matters where the fact in issue is something peculiar to the knowledge of the defendant[20], the ease of discharging the burden lies with the defendant but that is precisely why the exceptions exist to provide flexibility to the Woolmington principle. There appear to be clear signs of the Woolmington principle withering away and being replaced by an abstract procedure that subjects defendants to a lottery of sorts. Perhaps the more pertinent question to ask is whether courts are wary of the need to develop consistent principles in this area of law that can guide them when assessing the justifications of reverse burdens of proof. Glover provides a very unique and interesting way out of these inconsistent principles: he advocates the use of a ” licensing approach” in cases involving regulatory offences: by acting unlawfully in a sphere of regulated activity, a defendant presumably accepts the imposition of a reverse legal burden of proof[21]. This is a somewhat ambitious view – given that Glover’s idea of ” regulatory offences” covers all major criminal offences – that fits well with ” choice theory” in criminal law, but it cannot resolve the current dilemma conclusively. Artificially reading reverse burdens as merely evidential does not entirely remedy the plague of procedural unfairness that mars criminal trials when defendants are presumed guilty instead of innocent. From the foregoing discussion, the one thing that is plainly visible is the inconsistency in case-law because of which the extent of erosion cannot be conclusively determined. In another sense however, one can argue that the Woolmington principle may in fact never be eroded beyond a certain point because of the burden on trial judges when directing juries: as long as the content of directions given to juries – emphasizing that the burden of proving its case lies on the prosecution – continue to capture the essence of the presumption of innocence, it is submitted that the Woolmington principle remains immune to total erosion. In a nutshell, there appears to be significant erosion of the Woolmington principle and this erosion is amplified by the inconsistent approaches favoured by courts, especially when interpreting statutory provisions.
Related Essay Samples
Essay on importance of evolution
This document, therefore, critically analyzes an article in the Nation Geographic Magazine by David Quammen, titled " Was Darwin wrong?" In the article, David explains the Darwin's theory of natural selection. The article also states that nearly 50% of Americans ...
Free research paper about does dropping out of school mean dropping into delinquency
In this study, the researchers focus on how the juvenile arrests system impacts on the likelihood of school dropout and how it has contributed to the educational attainment of the students who are arrested. The schools for juvenile detainees are ...
Importance of securing items
To be able to come back home after a long day of work, and leave the outside world to itself, would be great! Then you can have one of those days that will be nice to wake up to safe, ...
Paralegal class assignmnet #5
In The Antelope case, the US Supreme Court examined the validity of the slave trade following the capture of a ship ferrying slaves from Africa. By strictly interpreting the legislations appropriately, judges live to the letter and spirit of the ...
Research paper on law enforcement challenges
This is a phenomenon inherent in the internet where the users of the internet remain anonymous. Given the volatile, anonymous, non-jurisdictional and global nature of cyber-crimes, it is necessary to have a common ground in terms of law enforcement to ...
Forensic psychology aids in a conviction on behalf of elizabeth smart essay sample
Tolman believed that Smart's testimony made all the difference in determining that Mitchell was competent to stand trial." This case presented significant challenges," Tolman said, " It had already gone through the state system and at it was at a ...
Conforming to general health, safety and welfare in the workplace
This site induction is specific to the site and provides you with information on the current hazards of the site and tells you about the site rules and regulations you must comply to. In this case work within the area ...
Special political and decolonization committee criminology essay
Besides that, by participating in the MUN you will have the opportunity to learn about the crucial issues that are currently taking place in the world and practice your debating and speaking skills. One of them is the Comprehensive review ...
Explain agency law and its significance in the business environment
Agency law and its significance in business environment Affiliation: Agency law and its significance in the business environment An agency is a legal relationship whereby one person referred to as an agent acts for another one called the principal and ...
Mexican drug cartels: bringing
A continuing effort should be made to convert law enforcement on the Mexican side of the border as well, with the efforts to persuade the civilian population to resist without causing violence further hindering the movements and options of the ...
Monroe versus madison.
Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something " unconstitutional", and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. Marbury was never appointed a Justice of Peace in the District of Columbia.
Treatment of individuals in prison
It is therefore important that policy governing treatment individuals in the prisons should be formulated with the prisoners and officers in mind so as to ensure observation of human rights. It should also be consistent with national and international conventions ...
Theories of justice and equality by michael walzer
The theory of complex equality does not explicitly address this as a possible cause of cumulative inequalities. It should also be noted that Walzer does not rule out the possibility of a particular individual becoming dominant in all spheres and ...
The death penalty shall stay
All in all, it is important that the death penalty remains in the United States. Many opponents of the death penalty argue that the cost of capital punishment is about twice as expensive as life without parole punishments.
Mitchell v. lovington good samaritan center, inc. essay sample
On September 13, 1974, the Lovington Good Samaritan Center appealed the decision and the Commission overruled the Appeal Tribunal and reinstated the seven week disqualification period.Mrs. Mitchell willfully disregarded the interests of the Lovington Good Samaritan Center.
Contrasting important features of ucrs criminology essay
Name Institution Instructor Course Code Comparison of the Two Primary Crime Data Sources Used In the United States, the Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident-Based Reporting System The two primary sources of crime data employed in the United States ...
Court cases research paper
The big question in this case is that did that search of Weeks' home and confiscation of his personal items go against the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution? The big question in this case is that did the search ...
The international criminal court at the hague netherlands research paper
Some of the countries that have joined the court already are nearly all of the European countries as well as the Latin America and virtually half of the African countries. The international Criminal Court and Problems of State Sovereignty.
Law notes essay sample
Among the reasons given by the three judges were that the advert was not a unilateral offer to all the world but an offer restricted to those who acted upon the terms contained in the advertisement that satisfying conditions for ...
A model of senior appellate court reasoning law equity essay
The facts of the case are, the Royal Brunei airline contracted an agency agreement with a travel agency, BLT, which under the agreement BLT was to sell tickets for the airlines. The issue arose was ' whether the breach of ...
Burglary & distinguishing characteristic
In the case of robbery, the property is taken with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of that property. The threat or act of violence is not present, as in robbery; however, the larcenist must be in complete ...
Analysis of valet ticket
The purpose of this paper is to explain the strengths and weakness of a valet ticket in terms of its legality. If a car is damaged or a person is injured while is in the hotel, the initial question is ...
Colomo vs bonds – what sexual harassment really is
The court was issued with the accounts of the meetings where Fuller had taken Colomo to seclusion within the school and asked her to be his girlfriend and in the process touched her inappropriately. However, the student had maintained stable ...
The role of the gulf cooperation council of arab states to members in order to achieve thesis examples
In order to understand the role the GCC portrays in the application of the MDGs, it is crucial to understand how experts see the GCC on implementing or monitoring its policies. In an economic perspective, the GCC's implementation and monitoring ...
Controversial topic essay sample
On February 11, 2003, the State of Arkansas was given permission to force prisoner, Charles Laverne Singleton, to take medicine to make him sane enough to be executed for felony capital murder. SUPPORT When it comes to medicine regardless of ...