The legal burden and standard of proof where the defendant claims accident (Woolmington v DPP)
Sofia Romano is tried in the Crown Court in England for unlawful wounding. The prosecution proves that the victim was cut by a glass Sofia was holding. Sofia gives evidence that the injury was a pure accident caused when she stumbled. There is no statutory provision placing any burden on her.
How should the judge direct the jury on the burden and standard of proof?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer C: The prosecution must prove Sofia's guilt so that the jury are sure; if they are left in reasonable doubt whether it was an accident, they must acquit.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; save for insanity and statutory exceptions, the defendant need only raise a reasonable doubt.
The legal burden and standard of proof where the defendant claims accident (Woolmington v DPP)
In Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1 the House of Lords held that, throughout the criminal law, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt, subject only to the defence of insanity and to statutory exceptions. The accused does not have to prove his innocence or prove an accident; it is enough for him to raise a reasonable doubt. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt created by the evidence of either side, the prosecution has not made out its case and the accused is entitled to be acquitted. No statute reverses the burden here, so the prosecution bears the legal burden of proving every element, including the mental element, to the criminal standard. If Sofia's account leaves the jury unsure, they must acquit.
Why A is wrong: Absent insanity or a statutory exception, the defendant bears no legal burden; she need only raise a reasonable doubt.
Why B is wrong: Woolmington rejected any rule that the burden shifts to the accused once the act is proved.
Why D is wrong: Weighing which account is more likely is the civil standard, not proof of guilt so that the jury are sure.
Why E is wrong: No burden of proof lies on the defendant at all on accident, let alone to the criminal standard.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Diminished responsibility: elements, burden and effect (Homicide Act 1957, s.2)
Which of the following best describes how the defence of diminished responsibility operates in Oliver's case?
Damages for negligent misrepresentation and the reverse burden of proof (Misrepresentation Act 1967 s.2(1))
Which of the following best describes Tom's position if he claims damages under the Misrepresentation Act 1967?
Extending detention without charge from 24 to 36 hours (PACE 1984 ss.41 and 42)
Which of the following best describes how Hannah's detention without charge may be extended?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.