Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions - Assignment Example

Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions Mr. Woolmington was convicted of murdering his wife. He then appealed his case to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The thrust of his appeal was that the judge who presided over his trial erred when exercising his discretion in instructing the jury, as he told the jury that the accused was presumed to be guilty of his wife’s demise, unless the defendant could satisfactorily prove his assertion, that the incident was an accident. In a statement on the occurrence of the incident, Mr. Woolington did not deny he was in possession of the gun which discharged the fatal shot. He said he told his wife he would commit suicide if she did not return with him to their home. However, he stated that as he was removing the weapon from his shoulder, it discharged and hit his wife. The first appeal which Mr.Woolington attempted on March 8, was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeals as they relied upon the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907 for guidance. Section 4(1) states1: "that the court may, notwithstanding they are of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if they consider no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred," The Court of Appeals felt that it was just a minor oversight, and no miscarriage of justice had occurred. Moreover, they felt that the misdirection of trial judge to the jury was merely a matter of semantics, and that “It might have been better”, had he instructed the jury on the aspects of reasonable doubt.. At the end of the day, the conviction was stayed. However, Lord Sankey LLC, felt that the trial judge did greviously err for following a practice, and not the law. Moreover, that the Crown Court of Appeals did not admonish the practice, and instead, applied the wrong law, by defending the practice. Lord Sankey LC, presentation was or has come to be very important because he engaged in a very detailed and methodical legal argument based on reasonableness, while at the same time, he mentioned the previous and prevailing legal precedents, which might have enabled the trial judge to misinstruct the jury. He points out how one of the most prominent jurist and scholar (Sir Michael Foster 1762),2 laid the foundation for the trial judges reasoning. Additionally while Sir Michael Foster is credited with codifying this practice, it has been perpetuated by numerous other writers as well,( Stephen’s Digest of the Criminal Law )3. It can also be located in Archibold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,4 among those lawyers who practice in the criminal courts of England, this is one of their primary resource items. In Russell on Crimes,5 one can find what is close to a textual rendition. Additionally, Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd ed. Vol.9 states: "When it has been proved that one person's death has been caused by another, there is a prima facie presumption of law that the act of the person causing the death is murder, unless the contrary appears from the evidence either for the prosecution or for the defence. The onus is upon such person when accused to show that his act did not amount to murder."6 The authority for that proposition is given as FOSTER, p 255, Which of course brings us full circle and back to the root of the problem. Lord Sankey poses the question whether Sir Foster is suggesting that rather than the onus be upon the prosecution to prove the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that perhaps Sir Foster is suggesting , the burden be transferred to the accused, to prove his innocence. He suggests that if the latter is the case, then he knows of no precedent which establishes this.However, for the record he states that the Court of Common Appeal was not established until 1907, and prior to its establishment, the counsel in murder cases was somewhat ad-hoc. As an example, he cites three cases which occurred between 1611 and 1843, when the judges and the barons were summoned to decide on cases of murder. In R v McNaghten 18437, the judges were called upon to decide a case of insanity, in a murder trial. Lord Sankey takes special care to point out that R v. Mcnaghten has absolutely no bearing on Woolmington, however, he wishes to illustrate those instances in a murder trial when the onus of proving ones innocence, is placed upon the accused. Additionally, he cites R v Oliver Smith 8, that even if insanity is relied upon as a defence, it must be called upon by the defence. That it had been previously decided by the judges that it was not ‘proper’ for the Crown to call evidence of insanity. Further, that if the Crown should be transparent in exercising discovery, and any evidence it possessed regarding the case should be turned over the accused, to be used in his defence as he sees fit. occurred by a voluntary act which was committed by the person accused, and that there was malice. The point which Lord Sankey is attempting to make here is, there was no legal justification for the trial judge to instruct the jury as he did in this case. This is not to say that there are not statutory exceptions which dictate the accused to prove his innocence. After Lord Sankey fully established the fact that the court did not possess the legal authority to place the burden of proof on the accused, he moved on to establish a legal definition for murder and manslaughter.He makes mention of the fact that many of the cases which are used as examples to define and illustrate legal propositions are taken from the legal summaries of judges and are illustrations in textbooks on authority, versus from the interpretations of a full court.. Consequently, we might very well encounter a similar conceptual dilemma with the definition of murder and manslaughter, as we have witnessed with the practice in advancing the onus of burden of proof. He begins by citing Stephens Digest of the Criminal Law9, and notes that the author in formulating his definition, has ventured beyond the legal parameters, and has endeavored instead to elucidate the ingredients of the crime. He also points out that the author in Stephens takes an aggressive swipe at finding fault with previous authorities on the subject. He lays a specific attack on the definition presented by Coke, and labels it as small talk and convoluted logic, which as the author describes, leads to bewilderment. Along with sharp criticism against Coke, the author in Stephen’s makes mention of Hale’s definition as being convoluted logic and hobgoblin. To the extent that it is not possible to reach an opinion on the basis of the writing. The author in Stephen’s reaches back to Sir Foster, and lays the blame for Cokes shortsighted definition at Fosters feet. Lord Sankey points out that there is a long history (of cases), and volumes of discussion and debate. However, there still is not an acceptable legal standard definition to which even a majority of the authorities can agree on the adequacy if defining the act. Lord Sankey sought to forego the ingredients and attempt to define the act. In so doing, he examined the definitions of implied and express malice.He offers a quote from Bayley J, in Bromage v. Prosser10, where he described malice as, a wrongful act, done intentionally without just cause or excuse. While Bayley took strides to define malice, earlier cases sought only to describe the malice which was perpetrated. Again he mentions Coke, and the presentation of ingredients, and points out that there still does not appear to be any onus of proof, nor is there a proposition in support of Sir Michael Foster. Conclusion It is clear that Lord Sankey, agreed with the Attorney General that the case of Mr. Woolington contained a point of law, which could be construed as a miscarriage of justice. As Lord Sankey sought to decipher the exact point of law which was the culprit, he engaged in a mission, to uncover the root cause of the problem. It was clear to him that the trial judge had misdirected the jury, and it was even more obvious to him that the first appeal of Mr. Woolington, did not receive a comprehensive review. These were the obvious issues and facts. The matter which was catalogued was why this situation had persisted. He engaged in specific and detailed legal research, which involved a period of over three hundred years, in his attempt to uncover either the proposition or the law, which enabled a point of law to be overlooked, and justice not be served. Bibliography Criminal Appeals Act of 1907 s 4 (1) Sir Michael Foster(1762,‘The Introduction to the Discourse of Homicide” published at Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1782, p.255 Stephens Digest of the Criminal Law, 7th ed p.235 Archibold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,(1934) 29th ed. P.873 Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd ed. Vol 9 Russell, W.O. (1923),A treatise on crimes and misdemeanors Russell on Crimes 8th ed, vol 1, p 615, London: Stevens [usw.], 1923. R v. McNaghten 1943 R c. Oliver Smith 6 Cr App Rep at p 19 Stephen’s Digest of the Criminal Law (9th ed, 1950) Read More