Law of Evidence and Proof

Question 1

What did the case Woolmington v DPP establish in relation of the presumption of innocence?

Answer 1

The burden of proof clearly lies with the prosecution to prove all of the elements of the offence.

Question 2

Explain and contrast the standards of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt” and “balance of probabilities”.

Answer 2

1. Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of proof required for prosecution to prove its case. It means that the jurors need to be satisfied of guilt before a conviction can be reached.
2. Balance of probabilities is the standard of proof required for defence to prove a particular element of its case. It means it must carry a reasonable degree of probability, but not so high as is required in a criminal case. If the tribunal can say, we think it more probable than not, the burden is discharge, if the probabilities are equal, the burden is not discharged.

Question 3

R v Wanhalla - Jury told that reasonable doubt is…

Answer 3

An honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the defendant after you have given careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence.

Question 4

The fundamental principle in Criminal Law is the presumption of innocence and that the burden of proof lies with the Prosecution. Outline two exceptions to this rule.

Answer 4

1) The defence of insanity is claimed
2) Express statutory exceptions exist e.g. possession of an offensive weapon in circumstances that prima facie show an intention to use it to commit an offence involving bodily injury, under s202A(4)(b)
3) The offence is a public welfare regulatory offence

Question 5

The Woolmington principle may not apply in the case of public welfare regulatory offences. Explain why this is and provide an example of such an offence.

Answer 5

The purpose of public welfare regulatory offences is to regulate everyday conduct having a tendency to endager the public or sections of the public. For these offences, once the prosecution has proved the actus reus, there is no further need to prove mens rea and the burden passes to the defendant to prove a total absence of fault as a defence.

These are “strict liability” offences, which may be seen as sitting outside the Woolmington principle, as opposed to a true exception. An example of such an offence is exceeding the posted speed limit.