Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Revision as of 11:29, 17 July 2019 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
Editorial Board of the JCLR: Managing Editor: Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R. · General Editor: Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. · Principle witness: Mrs. Pinterman

Common law | Litigation | Contract | Tort |

Click ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

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.

See also

References