Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions

In a criminal trial, the prosecution bears the legal burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That burden does not shift merely because the prosecution proves that the accused caused a death. An accused who relies on accident or provocation need only raise a reasonable doubt on the whole evidence; there is no duty to satisfy the jury of innocence.

In murder, the Crown must prove death resulting from the accused’s voluntary act and malice, whether express or implied. The general rule is subject to the exceptional defence of insanity and to statutory exceptions. A direction reversing the burden cannot be cured under the criminal appeal proviso unless the appellate court can conclude that a properly directed jury would inevitably have convicted.

Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions concerned a conviction for the murder of the appellant’s wife. His case was that he had taken a loaded, shortened gun to persuade her to return to him by threatening suicide, and that the weapon discharged accidentally while he was handling it.

The first jury disagreed. At a second trial, the judge directed that, once the killing was proved, homicide was presumed to be murder unless the appellant satisfied the jury that the offence was mitigated, justified or accidental. He was convicted and sentenced to death.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed his appeal under the proviso to section 4(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907. Following the Attorney-General’s certificate, the central issue before the House was whether the direction wrongly transferred the burden of disproving murder to the accused and, if so, whether the conviction could nevertheless stand.

1. Disposition. Viscount Sankey LC delivered the leading speech. Lord Atkin, Lord Hewart CJ, Lord Tomlin and Lord Wright concurred. The House unanimously allowed the appeal, reversed the Court of Criminal Appeal, quashed the conviction and remitted the cause to that court.

2. Burden of proof. Per Viscount Sankey LC, the prosecution’s duty to prove guilt is the enduring general principle of English criminal law. It continues throughout the trial. If the whole evidence, whether called by the Crown or the accused, leaves a reasonable doubt about guilt, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. The accused need not satisfy the jury of innocence.

3. Murder and accident. Per Viscount Sankey LC, the Crown must prove both that death resulted from a voluntary act of the accused and that the accused acted with malice. Malice may be proved expressly or inferred where the fatal voluntary act was intentional and unprovoked. Evidence of accident or provocation need only satisfy the jury or leave it in reasonable doubt. Proof that the accused caused the death does not transfer the legal burden to him.

4. Authorities and exceptions. Per Viscount Sankey LC, the contrary dictum in Rex v Greenacre 8 C & P 35, if understood as requiring the accused to prove mitigation or accident, was wrong. The House approved the consistent burden principles stated in Rex v Abramovitch (1914) 11 Cr App R 45 and Rex v Davies 29 Times LR 350. The general rule remained subject to the exceptional burden governing insanity under M’Naughton’s Case and to statutory exceptions.

5. Criminal appeal proviso. Per Viscount Sankey LC, the proviso to section 4(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907 could apply to a murder conviction. It could not be applied here because the House could not conclude that a properly directed jury would inevitably have reached the same verdict. The direction had placed on the appellant a burden which the law did not impose.

1. House of Lords: In Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462, the House unanimously allowed the appeal, reversed the order below, quashed the conviction and remitted the cause to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
2. Court of Criminal Appeal: The appeal was dismissed under the proviso to section 4(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907, despite the court’s recognition that a direction referring expressly to reasonable doubt might have been preferable.
3. Assizes: The jury at the Somerset Assizes disagreed. At the subsequent Bristol Assizes trial, the appellant was convicted of wilful murder and sentenced to death.