Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m Amwelladmin moved page Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions - Case Note to Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{casenote|Woolmington|Director of Public Prosecutions}} [1935] AC 462 is a landmark [[House of Lords]] case, where the presumption of innocence was first articulated in the Commonwealth. | {{cn}}{{casenote|Woolmington|Director of Public Prosecutions}} [1935] AC 462 is a landmark [[House of Lords]] case, where the presumption of innocence was first articulated in the Commonwealth. | ||
:"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." | :''"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 {{t|common law}} of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."'' | ||
Ogden Nash<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1954/07/10/period-period as published in the New Yorker in 1954]</ref> had his own view of [[Woolmington]]: | Ogden Nash<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1954/07/10/period-period as published in the New Yorker in 1954]</ref> had his own view of [[Woolmington]]: | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:''They would have known, had they not been confused —'' | :''They would have known, had they not been confused —'' | ||
:''He’s innocent until he is accused.'' | :''He’s innocent until he is accused.'' | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Doctrine of precedent]] | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:58, 19 December 2020
|
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
|
Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462 is a landmark House of Lords case, where the presumption of innocence was first articulated in the Commonwealth.
- "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."
Ogden Nash[1] had his own view of Woolmington:
- Our fathers claimed, by obvious madness moved
- A man’s innocence, until his guilt is proved
- They would have known, had they not been confused —
- He’s innocent until he is accused.