Woolmington v. DPP

Facts

• Reginald Woolmington was charged with the murder of his wife Violet.
• The couple had separated and Violet was living with her mother.
• Woolmington went to the mother's house with a sawn-off shotgun concealed under his coat.
• He claimed the gun went off accidentally while he was trying to persuade Violet to return home by threatening to kill himself.
• The trial judge directed the jury that once the prosecution proved killing, the burden shifted to the accused to prove it was an accident.

Issue

1. Whether once the prosecution proves the act of killing, the legal burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove that it was accidental or unintentional?

Held

• The trial judge's direction was wrong in law; the burden of proof does not shift to the accused upon proof of the actus reus.
• It is the duty of the prosecution to prove every element of the offence, including mens rea, beyond reasonable doubt.
• This burden remains on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused.
• The only exception recognized at common law is the defence of insanity, where the accused bears the burden under M'Naghten's Rules.
• The conviction was quashed and a verdict of manslaughter substituted.

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of innocence is the foundation of criminal justice. Viscount Sankey LC declared that "throughout the web of 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." If at the end of the evidence the jury has reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Shifting the burden upon proof of the physical act would convert the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt and fundamentally alter the character of criminal adjudication. The accused need not prove anything; he need only raise a reasonable doubt.