Woolmington V. DPP (1935) Ac 462

3: Describe the facts and analyze the rule of law in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 In the case of Woolmington v DPP [1935] the appellant Reginald Woolmington took measures into his own hands and stole a double barreled shotgun from his employer to persuade his wife Violet Kathleen Woolmington of three and a half months to return to him after she had left on November 22 1934 to live with her mother. The appellant rode over to the house on a bicycle where he shot his wife, in January of the following year he was arrested and charged for the murder of his wife. The rule of law in such cases is that the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt to give a fact legal recognition in the eyes of the court, however in this case due to direction the jury was given the onus was placed on the defendant and in doing so inadvertently broke the presumption of innocence clause of the criminal justice system. This highlighted the burden of proof rule and it was stated by Viscount Sankey L.C that “Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to
In such situations where failure to act can amount to the death or injury or another this would cause a breach of the social contract every citizen of a society must uphold since there is no distinguishing factor between failing to perform an act to prevent foreseeably bad circumstances and actually performing the act that would bring about the bad circumstances as a result the objective test is used to determine if the accused would had sustained any injury in the circumstances and if not the omission is seen equally culpable a positive action in criminal