Chapter 1: Burden Of Proof Flashcards
*Woolmington principle
The fundamental principle in criminal law is the presumption of innocence or the woolmington principle. It establishes that Subject to statutory exceptions, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution in relation to all elements of the offence, and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
4 reasons defence may put forward a case
- practical obligation
- evidential burden
- burden of proof reversed (reverse onus)
- Woolmington may not apply
Practical obligation
If the prosecution provide sufficient evidence to prove the defendant committed the offence with the requisite mens rea, the defence have a practical obligation to produce a story or evidence to suggest the conclusion is wrong, introducing reasonable doubt.
Evidential burden
The defendant may wish to put up a defence to a charge. It is up to the defence to produce evidence providing an explanation e.g self defence. Where the defence WISHES to put up a defence, it’s not just a practical obligation but now also an evidential burden.
Once its a live issue the prosecution must destroy that defence, as the burden of proof still lies with prosecution.
**Exceptions to Woolmington principle
- Defence of insanity
- statutory exception e.g 202a - prima facie intent to use it as a weapon
Woolmington need not apply
Offences where the proof of actua reas is sufficient and mens rea need not apply, e.g liquor ban breach, strict liability offences
Discharging a burden of proof
Burden is on prosecution : beyond reasonable doubt
Burden on defence: balance of probabilities
Beyond reasonable doubt
R v WANHALLA - a ‘reasonable doubt’ is: an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the defendant after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence.
*Balance of probabilities
more probable than not. If the probabilities are equal, it’s not sufficient. E.g insanity
