Woolmington v DPP
| Woolmington v DPP | |
|---|---|
| Court | House of Lords |
| Decided | 23 May 1935 |
| Citation(s) | [1935] AC 462; [1935] UKHL 1 |
| Cases cited | None |
| Legislation cited |
Criminal Appeal Act 1907 s. 1 Criminal Appeal Act 1907 s. 4 Criminal Evidence Act 1898 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | None |
| Subsequent action(s) | None |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Viscount Sankey LC, Lord Hewart LCJ, Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin and Lord Wright |
| Keywords | |
| Burden of proof, Intention, Jury directions, Murder | |
Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1 is a famous House of Lords case in English law, where the presumption of innocence was first articulated in the Commonwealth.
History
Reginald Woolmington was a 21-year-old farm labourer from Castleton, Dorset. 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 Woolmington stole a double-barrelled shotgun and cartridges from his employer, sawed off the barrel, throwing it into 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 wilful 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. While 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 Woolmington that the burden of proof was on him to show that the shooting was accidental. At trial the jury deliberated for 69 minutes. On February 14, 1935 Woolmington 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....
Judgment
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 if a death occurred, it is presumed to be murder unless proved otherwise.
In articulating the ruling, Lord 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... 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."
The conviction was overturned, and Woolmington was acquitted. He was released three days before his scheduled execution date.
External links
- Full Law Report from Justis
- Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1 (23 May 1935), House of Lords from BAILII