|
©1994-2007 Kevin Boone | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
R v Woolmington (1935)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
[1935] AC 462 (House of Lords). Also reported as Woolmington v DPP. The material facts of the case are these: Woolmington's wife left him shortly after their marriage; he went to where she was living and shot and killed her with a shotgun.
Woolmington's defence was that he had not intended to kill his wife. Instead, he intended to kill himself if she would not return. The gun went off accidentally while he was remonstrating with her.
The original trial judge ruled that the case against the defendent was so strong that he would have to demonstrate the accidental nature of the shooting. If he could not do this, then it would be murder.
This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal, but allowed by the House of Lords. The Lords ruled that however bad things looked for the defendent, he was allowed the benefit of any doubt:
Throughout the web of English law one golden thread is always to be seen: that it is the duty of prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt... This case was not, of coure, the first time that a defendant in a criminal trial had relied on the maxim ``innocent until proven guilty''. The presumption of innocence is now enshrined in the EuropeanConventionOnHumanRights, but is even now not absolute. See PresumptionOfInnocence for discussion.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||