Woolmington v. DPP
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Woolmington v. DPP | |
| House of Lords | |
| Date decided: | 23 May 1935 |
| Full case name: | Woolmington and the Director for Public Prosecutions |
| Citations: | [1935] AC 462 |
| Judges sitting: | Viscount Sankey LC, Lord Hewart LCJ, Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin and Lord Wright |
| Cases cited: | None |
| Legislation cited: | Criminal Appeal Act 1907 s. 1
Criminal Appeal Act 1907 s. 4 Criminal Evidence Act 1898 |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions: | None |
| Subsequent actions: | None |
| Keywords | |
| Burden of proof, Intention, Jury directions, Murder | |
Woolmington v. DPP [1935] AC 462 is a famous House of Lords case in English law, where the presumption of innocence was first articulated in the commonwealth.
[edit] History
Reginald Woolmington was a 21 year old farm labourer from Castleton.[disambiguation needed] On November 22, 1934, three months after his marriage to 17 year old Violet Kathleen Woolmington, his wife left him and went to live with her mother. On December 10 Reginald stole a double-barrel shotgun and cartridges from his employer, sawed off the barrel, throwing it in a brook, and then bicycled over to his mother-in-law's house where he shot and killed Violet. He was arrested on January 23 the following year and charged with the willful murder of his wife.
Woolmington claimed he did not intend to kill her. He wanted to win her back so he planned to scare her by threatening to kill himself if she did not come back. When questioning her about returning, he attempted to show her the gun that he was to use to kill himself. By accident, the gun went off shooting Violet in the heart.
The Trial judge ruled that the case was so strong against Reginald that the onus was on the defendant to show that the shooting was accidental. At trial the jury deliberated for an hour and 25 minutes. On February 14, 1935 he was convicted and sentenced to death.
On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, Woolmington argued that the Trial judge misdirected the jury. The appeal judge discounted the argument using the common law precedent as stated in "Foster's Crown Law" (1762).
- ... In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner, unless they arise out of the evidence produced against him; for the law presumeth the fact to have been founded in malice, unless the contrary appeareth...
[edit] Ruling
The issue brought to the House of Lords was whether the statement of law in "Foster's Crown Law" was correct when it said that where a death occurred it is presumed to be murder unless proven otherwise.
The House of Lords could not find any basis for the claim in Foster's Crown Law. In articulating the ruling, 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 what I have already said as 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, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, 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. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) malice of the accused.
The conviction was overturned and Woolmington acquitted.
