Woolmington V Dpp PDF

Preview

Summary

Woolmington V Dpp 1935...

Description

COURSE NAME: CRIMINAL LAW COURES CODE: LLB 113 YEAR: ONE LECTURER: MR ARNOLD KWESIGA STUDENT’S NAME: AHEEBWA ROGERS MUSIIME STUDENT’S ID: 062-499

"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 defense 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." Sankey spent much time contrasting the position under the criminal law at the time when the decisions relied upon in Foster's Crown Law were handed down, and the present period in time. Previously a person accused of a crime was not even entitled to be represented in court unless they were charged with a felony. Using relevant authorities and case law, discuss the above statement in light of your understanding of burden of proof and presumption of innocence as key principle in criminal law.

INTRODUCTION The1 Black’s law dictionary defines Criminal law as a branch or division of law which treats of crime and their punishments. That is to say, criminal law is an institution designed to protect society from certain substantive harm or crime for example theft, by imposing sanctions upon selected individuals. It is clear from the above that criminal law is backed by sanctions, that is to say, it states that ‘do it this way, or suffer for it’. When a person conducts him or herself contrary to the sanctions of criminal law, he or she is arrested, tried and punished if found guilty. Furthermore it is not only important that the legal element is required for the conviction of a crime, but also which party is to prove such element and that the actions or non acting of the accused indeed caused or constituted a crime. This is known as burden of proof and the degree to which it is supposed to be proved is referred to as standard of proof. It is worth noting that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove a fact or case and this is what is referred to in the golden thread in English criminal law. However, there are two types of burdens in criminal law; being the production or evidential burden and the legal burden. The evidential burden lies on the party who wishes to rely on such facts or information as relevant to his or her case as provided for in2 section 101(1) of the Evidence Act cap 6, that “whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependant on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist.” More to the above, section 101(2) 3provides that, “when a person is bound to prove the existence of any facts, it is said that the burden of lies on that person.” This evidential burden can shift at any time from the prosecution to the defendant or accused and the reverse is also true. One can therefore conclude as4 section 103 that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence unless it is provided for by law that the burden of proof shall lie on a particular party. In contrary, the legal burden on the other hand lies on the party that brings the case hence forth thus the expression in common law that ,”he who asserts must prove.” Therefore in Criminal law, the burden of proof lies on the Prosecution.

1 The Black’s law dictionary 2 section 101(1) of the Evidence Act Cap 6 3 section 101(2) of the Evidence Act Cap 6 4 section 103 of the Evidence Act Cap 6

However, there is a standard or degree to which the prosecution must prove its case in order to secure conviction and that is, beyond reasonable doubt. As illuminated in the case of5 Miller V minister of pensions, the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt must not be interpreted as beyond a shadow of doubt as this may prove to be unfair to the members of society as argued by Lord Denning. Worth mentioning is also the fact that the burden of proof supports the principle of presumption of innocence as provided for in6 article 28 3(a) of the 1995 constitution of Uganda, that everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty. This is depicted in the Land Mark of the house of the Lords case of7 1935, Woolmington V DPP, where the presumption of innocence was first articulated in the common wealth and it was held that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt until proved guilty and that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its cases beyond reasonable doubt save for any exceptions as may be provided for by the law. This is further illuminated in the case of 8Uganda V Dick(19921993) HCB 54.

As stated in

the earlier stages of Woolmington’s appeal, there are instances in which the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the accused , these are as discussed below; First and fore, when the accused pleads a defense of insanity, the burden of proving that he was insane by the time of the crime shifts to the accused as proved for by the9 penal code Cap 120, under section [10], “ all persons are presumed by the law to be of sound mind, until the contrary is.”

In such instances, the standard of proof will not be beyond reasonable

doubt, but it will take the nature of the standards that is on the balance of probabilities. Furthermore, the burden of proof can also shift in instances where a defense of intoxication has been risen. 10Section 12 of the penal code Act, provides that general intoxication cannot be used as defense against a criminal charge, therefore when the accused rises the defense of intoxication, the burden of proof is on him or her to prove the circumstances in which or why he 5 Miller V Minister of pension 6 article 28 3(a) of the 1995 constitution of Uganda as amended. 7 1935, Woolmington V DPP 8 Uganda V Dick(1992-1993) HCB 54 9 Section [10] Penal code Cap 120 10 Section 12 of the penal code Act Cap 120

or she should be granted the defense, for example, in11 M’naghter rule, a person is punishable according to the nature of the crime committed. If he or she knows at the time of committing such crime that he or she was acting contrary to the law as justified in the12 R v Windle [1952] 2 QB 82. It is also important to assert that the defenses of insanity also hold elements disease of mind where, M’naghten rules state that the accused must prove that at the time of commiting the act, he or she was laboring under a defect of reason from a disease of the mind, thus in13 R V Kemp 1957, it was held that a temporary black out due a physical condition constitute a desease of mind and also incapabilities such as inabilities of understanding what the accused in the time of the cime. Forinstance, in the case of14 R V magmata 1957 where it was held that the accused did not know what he was doing when he killed his father and he was insane. The issue in this instance is not whether the accused is able to distinguish between right and wrong, but whether he had knowledge that the act was legally wrong, this is seen In the Winddle case 1952 were medical evidence produced at the trial that D was certifiably insane after the death of the woman, the defendant gave himself to the police saying, “they will hung me for this,” both of the accused and the prosecutor agreed that he knew he was doing an act which forbade, thus the insanity defense was quashed. All to be bound together, I pray to take the liberty to assert the reasonable words of William black stone, that, it is better for ten guilty men to go free than to convict one innocent soul. It should be of general reason that any accused person should be given the benefit of doubt until proved otherwise. And in order to prevent incriminating an innocent person, robbing him of life with his or her family, it is just fair that the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that indeed the accused is guilty of the crime. In instances where the prosecution fails to pin the accused to the crime, no matter which place nor the crime, the accused must be acquitted as stated by 15Viscount Sankey in “The Golden Thread” 11 M’naghter rule

12 R v Windle [1952] 2 QB 82 13R V Kemp 1957 14 R V magmata 1957 15 Viscount Sankey in “The Golden Thread”

BIBIOGRAPHY 1. Constitution of the republic of Uganda 2. Penal code Act cap 120 3. Evidence Act Cap 6 4. Uganda Law Report 5. East African law Report 6. www.e-lawyersource...