Homework answers / question archive / Seminar Tutor (If appropriate): Module Title: Study Skills Module Code Have you checked the following in order to maximise the grade you can achieve for this assignment? Please mark X to confirm Learning Outcomes have been addressed Similarity check via Turn-it-in Referencing accuracy according to provided guide Grammar Spelling Word count (or other length limitation as described in the brief) WELLBEING We wish to support any student who is experiencing mitigating circumstances which prevents students from performing to the best of their ability when completing or submitting assignments

Seminar Tutor (If appropriate): Module Title: Study Skills Module Code Have you checked the following in order to maximise the grade you can achieve for this assignment? Please mark X to confirm Learning Outcomes have been addressed Similarity check via Turn-it-in Referencing accuracy according to provided guide Grammar Spelling Word count (or other length limitation as described in the brief) WELLBEING We wish to support any student who is experiencing mitigating circumstances which prevents students from performing to the best of their ability when completing or submitting assignments

Writing

Share With

Seminar Tutor (If appropriate): Module Title: Study Skills Module Code Have you checked the following in order to maximise the grade you can achieve for this assignment? Please mark X to confirm Learning Outcomes have been addressed Similarity check via Turn-it-in Referencing accuracy according to provided guide Grammar Spelling Word count (or other length limitation as described in the brief) WELLBEING We wish to support any student who is experiencing mitigating circumstances which prevents students from performing to the best of their ability when completing or submitting assignments. If you are experiencing such circumstances, then you may apply for mitigating circumstances. Wherever possible this must be done prior to handing your assignment. I believe that I do / I do not need to apply for mitigating circumstances for this assignment at this moment in time Please delete as appropriate (You may still apply for mitigating circumstances if you subsequently feel that your performance has been adversely affected by issues that you may currently be unaware of). ? SELF – REFLECTION This section suggested for inclusion if appropriate to the assessment otherwise can be deleted It is optional for you to complete the self-reflection section, but you are encouraged to consider the benefits to your personal and academic development. Follow this library link to access an example of the academic literature that will help you explore and understand these benefits, (Jennifer A. Moon, 2013. Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory and Practice) If you complete this section, we will ensure that your feedback/forward addresses the specific areas of academic practice for which you seek support or guidance. Self-reflection guidance: 1. Review the assessment criteria in the assignment brief. 2. List the criteria below – you can use all the criteria or choose those which you wish to focus on. 3. Next to the criteria you have listed indicate the degree to which you think you have met that criteria using the phrases “Not Met”, “Partially Met”, “Completely Met” 4. In the third column provide a brief comment that indicates your reason for your self-assessment and what would help you improve Criteria Self-Assessment Rationale & Further Support Example: Referencing Partially Met I am confident referencing journals and books, but I am unsure how to reference web pages, podcasts and legislation. An additional tutorial on less common referencing would help. Essay Question This essay seeks to examine ‘Woolmington v DPP’ (1935) and in doing so will detail why Viscount Sankey’s ‘golden thread’ speech, on the onus of the prosecution to prove a defendant’s guilt and their right to a fair trial, remains so important in English Criminal Law. It will start by discussing the background of the case as well as the legal principles and procedures involved. It will then examine cases before and after Sankey’s speech reflecting examples of when the onus of the burden of proof has been of great significance. In December 1934 Reginald Woolmington, a 21-year-old farm labourer, shot and killed his 17-year-old wife Violet. She had left him a month earlier following a quarrel and was staying with her mother. When charged with Violet’s murder Woolmington alleged that he had not planned on shooting her but that the shotgun had fired by accident. His intention, he claimed, was simply to scare Violet into returning to him (‘Woolmington v. DPP’, 1935). Woolmington was initially tried at the Somerset Assizes in Taunton where the jury failed to reach a decision. The case was subsequently referred to the Bristol Assizes under Judge Swift where the jury found Woolmington guilty and sentenced him to death which, until the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, was the automatic sentence for murder. Woolmington’s application to the Court of Appeal was refused but was brought to the attention of Attorney-General Sir Thomas Inskip as a case of public interest due to a legal point of extraordinary importance (‘Woolmington v. DPP’, 1935). Inskip took the appeal to Lord Chancellor Viscount Sankey who brought it before the highest law court and judicial power in England at the time, the House of Lords; since October 2009 this is now the newly established Supreme Court (Blom-Cooper et al., 2009). As Lord Chancellor Sankey was seen among the magistrates and courts as head of the judiciary. During his time in this position from 1929 to 1935 he was heavily involved with legal reform in fields of law where there was vulnerability in the public interest (Stevens, 1979). Ormerod and Laird (2018) explain that a criminal offence requires both actus reus, a criminal deed, and mens rea, criminal objective. If a defendant has been proved to have committed a murder, they have caused an actus reus. It must therefore be proved that the accused had malicious intent towards the victim and the intention to kill. However, if the defendant can offer evidence showing that the killing was accidental and it cannot be proved to the jury beyond reasonable doubt that it was not an accident, they must be acquitted (Ormerod and Laird, 2018). The prosecution provided evidence of Woolmington’s actus reus as he confessed to his employer and mother, and turned himself in. A letter he had written admitting to the murder that was found on him when he was arrested appeared to prove mens rea, however in his trials he maintained that it was written after Violet’s death (‘Woolmington v. DPP’, 1935). If the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 had not been established Woolmington would have been deprived of his opportunities for re-trial. Prior to this legislation a suspect in a criminal case could not, under oath, provide testimony on his own behalf (Ormerod and Laird, 2018). The initial jury could not reach a verdict due to Woolmington’s testimony that the admission letter was written after and not before the shooting. Such was a case of Sir Henry Hawkins, a judge who had previously written against this Act, where a doctor was accused of sexually assaulting a female patient; the evidence against him had been overwhelmingly damming. However, once he had given his testimony, the jury and Hawkins established that he had been subjected to blackmail and so acquitted him (Williams, 1963). Hawkins (1906) wrote in his biography ‘Reminiscences’ on the new Act that however dangerous it can be for those who are guilty, for the innocent it is of the greatest value. This is reflected in Sankey’s speech that all defendants should be treated equally and receive a fair trial, regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty. Sir Inskip’s special interest in Woolmington’s case was born out of confusion over whose duty it was to prove the defendant guilty or innocent. Should the prosecution have had to prove Woolmington’s guilt, or was the onus on him to prove himself innocent on the basis that the shooting was accidental? At the Bristol Assizes Judge Swift misled the jury in summing up directly from Foster’s Crown Law (1762). He informed the jury that in the charge of murder the defendant had to prove their innocence or circumstances of accident once the killing by the defendant was established, which otherwise would be presumed to have been committed in malice. Swift’s misdirection by relying on Foster’s Crown Law was the key to Inskip giving his fiat for the case to be brought before the House of Lords (‘Woolmington v. DPP’, 1935). Although Sir Michael Foster was considered a renowned judge, his text did not establish or originate any doctrine that was considered definite law. Foster was dismissed as a ‘textbook writer’ who wrote a legal work that only assisted the creation of laws at the time not defined them, and crucially also implied that it was the defendant’s duty to satisfactorily prove their innocence and not for the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt (Block and Hostettler, 2002). It was this conflict over the burden of proof and the disproved ratio decidendi of Judge Swift that resulted in Woolmington being the first person convicted of murder to have their sentence quashed. In ‘Woolmington v DPP’ (1935) Viscount Sankey refers to the case of ‘R v. Greenacre (James)’ (1837) which was overseen by the distinguished Judge Tindal. While addressing the jury, Tindal included the guidance from Foster stating that there was a clear principal of law that a defendant on trial for murder has the onus of proving from evidence that their actions did not amount to murder (‘R v. Greenacre (James)’ 1837). In ‘Woolmington v. DPP’ (1935) it is concluded that this neither is nor was the law of England, therefore in both cases the judges were wrong to rely on Sir Foster’s writing as the authority for directing the juries. In a court where both judge and jury are present it is for the judge to sum up the evidence given by the prosecution and base their judgements on the facts and findings of the case (Cross and Harris, 1991). This process of summing up rests on two important legal concepts. Obiter dictum is a proposition that might assist in illustrating a judge’s reasoning, although in reaching a decision it is not necessary. Ratio decidendi, meanwhile, is the binding part of the decision and includes laws that will be implied by the judge as a necessary step in making their conclusion and direction of the jury (McLeod, 2013). Woolmington’s first application to the Court of Appeal against his conviction was turned down by Judge Avory. As per McLeod (2013) on the precedence and following of ratio decidendi, a previous verdict should be followed in the latter case where the findings and facts of both cases are necessarily similar for the judge to be confident that they should use the same principle of law. In his dismissal of the appeal Avory concluded that even if Judge Swift had omitted from his summary the information that was appealed as misleading, they should have still considered the reasonable doubt of the defendant’s testimony (‘Woolmington v. DPP’, 1935). However, due to Inskip redirecting the case to the House of Lords, the precedence of the initial decision and ratio decidendi could be placed into doubt. If compared to the earlier court the latter is hierarchically superior, then it can overrule the earlier decision if it is determined to be incorrect thereby denying any future court’s power to use it (McLeod, 2013). Sankey’s speech and the outcome of Woolmington’s case has since been used in various cases as a precedent in determining on whom the burden of proof rests. In ‘R v. Hunt (Richard)’ (1986) after an initial conviction for the possession of a concoction of drugs that included morphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, an application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. They concluded that although the prosecution should have provided evidence on the volume and form of the morphine, the burden lay upon the defendant to prove that the mixture’s preparation fell with within the legal exceptions. A later appeal to the House of Lords reversed this ruling upon the precedence of ‘Woolmington v. DPP’ (1935) stating that no burden should have fallen on the defendant and that the onus lay on the prosecution to identify if the morphine found in the defendant’s possession had been in the proscribed form (‘R v. Hunt (Richard)’, 1986). More recently in ‘R v. K(M)’ (2018) an Albanian national was found guilty of improper intention of possessing an identity document and conspiracy to supply a class A drug. The defendant alleged that she was a victim of trafficking and her legal team pursued the statutory defence that was permitted under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. In the initial and appeal cases the judges held that the defendant had the evidential burden to prove that she was a victim of slavery and trafficking, as well as the legal burden of proof regarding other essentials of the defence as set out in section 45 (‘R v. K(M)’, 2018). The burden of proof therefore lay on the defendant to demonstrate that she had been compelled to commit the offences and that her actions were a direct consequence of being a victim of trafficking. However, section 45 does not wholly demand her for any aspect of the defence to carry either the legal or persuasive burden of proof. The defendant must provide evidence in their defence, but the onus is on the prosecution to disprove them (‘R v. K(M)’, 2018). The appeal was held and both the cases of Woolmington and Hunt were entered as authorities on the reverse burden of proof and the general principal of the ‘golden thread’ that it is the prosecution’s duty to prove a defendant’s guilt. Unlike the prior cases, ‘R v. K(M)’ (2018) was decided after the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. The outcome of Woolmington’s case and Sankey’s subsequent speech is reflected in this Act which stipulates that ‘everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law’ (Human Rights Act 1998, Sch. 1). Although Sankey did not directly contribute towards this legislation it is evident that his words have had a considerable influence on its underlying judicial principles. The right to a fair trial was something that Woolmington did not receive, therefore Sankey saw it as an example to set to the rest of the country. His ‘golden thread’ speech sought to justify that the right to a fair trial was a part of the common law of England, as well as making one of the key contributions to criminal law by the House of Lords (Stevens, 1979). Though Viscount Sankey’s speech has since been used as precedence of the burden of proof in many criminal cases, there were exceptions to the ruling as mentioned in his summing up; insanity as a defence and that which is subject to statutory exemption. With specific regard to pleas of insanity, if the accused chooses to rely on this defence then the onus is exceptionally and unquestionably on them to prove it (‘Woolmington v. DPP’, 1935). The prosecution has the burden of proving that the defendant had the mens rea relating to the charges and therefore committed the actus reus. For the prosecution to also establish the accused’s mental state would conflict with their duty to prove that the defendant knew what they were doing when the crime was committed. Accordingly, the legal burden is transferred from the prosecution to the defendant. The insanity defence was formed in the M’Naghten Rules following the case of ‘R v. M’Naghten (Daniel)’ (1843) where it was made evident that if this defence was used by the defendant then onus of the burden of proof on balance of probabilities rests on them (Ormerod and Laird, 2018). When a defendant to a criminal charge is said to be presumed innocent, the onus is on the prosecution to prove his guilt. This ‘golden thread’, as formulated by Viscount Sankey, is seen even today throughout English Criminal Law. Sankey created a firm and lasting precedent for judicial rulings and although he never established any laws regarding the proof of innocence, and despite the length of time that has passed since his speech, it is evident that his words still hold significance in the legislation and laws of today. Reference List Block, B. and Hostettler, J. (2002) Famous Cases: Nine Trials That Changed the Law. Winchester: Waterside Press Blom-Cooper, L., Dickson, B. and Drewry, G. (2009) The Judicial House of Lords 1876-2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/contents (Accessed 14th November 2020) Criminal Evidence Act 1898, Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/61-62/36/contents (Accessed 23rd November 2020) Cross, R. and Harris, J. W. (1991) Precedent in English Law. 4th edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press Foster’s Crown Law (1762) Hawkins Brampton, H. (1906) The Reminiscences of Sir Henry Hawkins: Baron Brampton. London: Edward Arnold Human Rights Act 1998, Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents (Accessed: 21st November 2020) McLeod, I. (2013) Legal Method. 9th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/contents (Accessed: 29th November 2020) Modern Slavery Act 2015, Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/contents (Accessed: 30th November 2020) Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/71/contents (Accessed: 14th November 2020) Ormerod, D. and Laird, K. (2018) Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press ‘R v. Greenacre (James)’ (1837) English Reports, 173, pp. 388-391 ‘R v. Hunt (Richard)’ (1987) Criminal Appeal Reports, 84, pp. 163-185 ‘R v. K(M)’ (2018) The Criminal Appeal Reports, case 14. Westlaw. Available at: https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IAAA7EAD0891511E89683EC91DABE64A1/View/FullText.html (Accessed: 30th November 2020) ‘R v. M’Naghten (Daniel)’ (1843) The All England Law Reports, 8, pp. 718-724 Stevens, R. (1979) Law and Politics: The House of Lords as a Judicial Body, 1800-1976. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson Williams, G. (1963) The Proof of Guilt: A Study of the English Criminal Trial. 3rd edn. London: Stevens & Sons ‘Woolmington v. DPP’ (1935) Criminal Appeal Reports, 25, pp. 72-97 Appendix One