Facts:
Reginald Woolmington married his wife on August 25 after having known one other for some time. She delivered a child on October 14th. She left him on November 22 and moved in with her mother following what appears to have been a brief argument between them. Woolmington allegedly wanted her to return, but she did not.
According to evidence presented by the prosecution, Mrs. Daisy Brine, who was deceased’s aunt, heard sounds from the house next door, No. 24. She was aware that her niece, Reginald Woolmington’ s wife, resided there. She overheard Reginald Woolmington asking, “Are you going to come back home?” and recognized his voice. She did not hear the response. Then she heard a gunshot. When she looked out the front window, she saw Reginald Woolmington walk out and get on his bicycle.
As per Reginald’s statement, he threatened he would shoot himself and went on to show the gun and brought it across his waist and the gun somehow went off.
He was arrested at 7:30 on the evening of 10th December and charged with having committed murder, he said, “I want to say nothing except I done it and they can do what they like with me. It was jealousy, I suppose, her mother enticed her away from me. I done all I could to get her back. That’s all.”
A note was found in the pocket of his coat. It was in these terms: –
“Goodbye all. It is agonies to carry on any longer. I have kept true, hoping she’d return. This is the only way out. They ruined me and I’ll have my revenge. May God forgive me for doing this, but it is the best thing. Ask Jess to call for the money paid on motorbike. Her mother is no good on this earth but have no more cartilages only 2 one for her and one for me. I am of sound mind now. Forgive me for all the trouble cost. Goodbye, all. I love Violet with all my heart, Reg.”
On January 23, he was put on trial at the Somerset Assizes in Taunton. On February 14, he was found guilty in the Bristol Assizes and given the death penalty for the willful murder of his wife. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The appeal came before the Court of Criminal Appeals, up on March 18, and was dismissed relying upon the provision of Criminal Appeal Act 1907 which gave the power to the court to dismiss an appeal if they considered that no substantial miscarriage of Justice has occurred.
Thereupon, the attorney general gave his fiat certifying that the appeal of Reginald Woolmington involved a point of law of exceptional public importance, and that, in his opinion, it was desirable in the public interest that a further appeal should be brought.
Issues:
- Whether it was incumbent upon the accused to prove his innocence?
- Whether the passage from Foster correct to rely upon?
Appellant’s arguments:
- The learned judge had misled the jury when he stated that, given the facts of the case, he was legally deemed guilty of the murder unless he could persuade the jury that his wife’s death was the result of an accident.
- The learned judges did not take a more serious view on the omission of the trial judge to make it quite clear that the onus still lay upon the prosecution.
- However, the matter may have been regarded in the former years, at the present time, the criminal law rest on the foundation. That, apart from statutory enactment to the contrary, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner; otherwise, he must be acquitted.
- It is for the prosecution to satisfy the jury on all the evidence at the prisoner is not an innocent man, but a guilty man. They must take the whole of the evidence into consideration, and then it is not for the prisoner to say, “my explanation is such that it must satisfy you” it is enough for him to say, “this is my explanation” and if the jury on considering it a left in a reasonable doubt, then it is their duty to acquit the prisoner.
- Where a prima facie case having been made against him, the defendant offers an explanation. The jury must be directed that the owners of proof of guilt is still on the prosecution in that if on the whole evidence they are in donut they should acquit.
Respondent’s argument:
- “When it has been proved that one person’s death has been caused by another, there is a prime facie presumption of law that the act of the person causing the death is murder, unless the contrary appears from the evidence, either from the prosecution or for the defense. The onus is upon such person when accused to show that his act did not amount to murder.”. This is a famous passage which appears in nearly every textbook or abridgement which has been written after Sir Michael Foster’s article on “Introduction to the discourse of homicide’.
- The Crown must prove that the prisoner killed the man. The prisoner knows he did; formally he could not give evidence, but he still knew.
- In the absence of evidence of others comment, the court must need resort to inference. It considers how the death wound was inflicted; buy a gun or a knife or hammer or another lethal weapon. Such facts supply evidence of malice prepense.
- When all the knowledge is in the mind of the accused, it is most reasonable that he should state, or his advocate should suggest, how the death occurred.
- The appellant’s own explanation that he intended to frighten is wife into obedience by threatening to shoot himself and showing her the gun which he meant to use, disclosures an unlawful intention under sufficient evidence of malice aforethought.
- If in pursuing a malicious intention a man, even by accident, kills another person, that is murder.
Judgement:
Viscount Sankey announced that the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal would be reversed, and that the conviction would be quashed. The application of the proviso of S4 of Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 is declined.
Reasoning:
On the highlighted passage of Sir Michael Foster if he meant to lay down that there may arise during criminal trial a situation in which it is incumbent upon the accused to prove his innocence there is no previous authority for his proposition and it can be confirmed by the fact that in all the textbooks, no earlier authority cited for it.
Before one considers the earlier criminal law, several facts must be remembered. First, that it was not till 1907 that the Court of Criminal Appeals was set up. However, there has been famous occasions on which the judges gave their opinion upon the law bearing on murder.
Secondly, that prisoners were not entitled to be represented by counsel except in the cases of felony where counsel might argue the law on their behalf. And lastly that the prisoner himself was not allowed to give evidence before the Act passed in 1898.
Concluding, there was little doubt of whether in any of the early ones the question of the burden of proof was considered. Rather, they were concerned with the ingredients of the crime of murder and settling the meaning of express and implied malice.
One of the earlier treaties on criminal law was the History of the Pleas of the Crown by Sir Matthew Hale and nothing appears suggesting that the burden of proving his innocence lay on the prisoner. Another inference can be made that the verdict must be given not on any special pleading given by the prisoner, but upon and as the result of the whole case and it nowhere suggests that the burden of proof, either at the beginning or at the end of the case is not on the prosecution.
In the case of Rex vs. Stoddard, it was cited that, ‘Presumptions’ of guilt and prima facie cases of guilt in the trial of a party charged with crime mean no more than that from Michael Foster which is generally relied upon as an authority for the proposition that at some time of criminal case, the burden of proof lies on the prisoner to prove his innocence. Rather, it was reason that all that it is meant is that if it is proved that the conscious act of the prisoner killed a man, and nothing else appears in the case, there is evidence upon which the jury may, not must, find him guilty of murder. It is difficult to conceive so bare and meagre case, but that does not mean that the onus is not still on the prosecution.
The argument of appellants citing words of the learned judge to the jury is not the common law. A consideration of special verdicts show that it is not till the end of the evidence that a verdict can properly be found, and that at the end of the evidence it is not for the prisoner to establish his innocence, but for the prosecution to establish his guilt.
In either case, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. But when the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner, there is no such burden laid on the prisoner to prove his innocence and that it is sufficient for him to raise a doubt as to his guilt; he is not bound to satisfy the jury of his innocence.
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 prisoners’ guilt subject to the defense of insanity and to any statutory exception.
As for the proviso of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907 the Act makes no distinction between a capital case and any other case, but it is impossible to apply it in the present case.
Conclusion:
The most significant aspect of criminal law is the presumption of innocence, which cannot be overlooked. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There were two distinct parts. One where the prosecution must prove the offence, and the other where the accused must prove the general exceptions. The prosecution must establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in the case and ensure that there are no general exceptions. This has increased the burden on the prosecution.
The issue arises when laws are passed that reverse the burden of proof in cases of grave socioeconomic crimes that have a negative effect on society’s well-being and violate the presumption of innocence.
To resolve this problem, provisions that strike an equilibrium between the community’s broad interests and an individual’s personal rights must be implemented.
Author – Dimpal Khotele
BBALLB, Amity University Chhattisgarh