The question requires one to discuss as to what extent has the “Presumption of Innocence” as articulated by Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] , has changed in light of Human Rights Act [HRA] 1998.
Woolmington v DPP is a landmark House of Lords [ HOL] case where the Presumption of Innocence was first articulated # . In delivering his judgement for a unanimous Court, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread’ speech . ‘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 defence 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,
…show more content…
Evidential burden has been portrayed as the commitment to appear, if called upon to do so as such, there is an adequate evidence to raise an issue with regards to the presence of fact in issue, due respect being had to the standard of proof requested of the person under such obligation . Wherein a legal burden is one which describes the standard that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must satisfy to have that fact legally established. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant's guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable …show more content…
An express statutory reversal on burden of proof is where the statute expressly places the burden of on the accused . Such statutes uses phrases such as “unless the contrary is proved” or “prove whereof shall rest with the defendant” . An example of such a provision can be seen in Section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which states, “Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be