header-logo header-logo

02 August 2007 / Paul Firth
Issue: 7284 / Categories: Features , Media , Profession
printer mail-detail

Picture of innocence

The presumption of innocence is being eroded by
the press and politicians, says Paul Firth

“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.” For those who thought that was a quotation made up by John Mortimer, fitting both Rumpole’s most cherished submission and his propensity to use poetic language, perhaps I should explain that it is part of the judgment of the then lord chancellor in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462, [1935] All ER Rep 1. In those days lord chancellors not only sat on important House of Lords’ cases, but they were also able to express themselves in such terms.

A SIMPLE PRINCIPLE

I still recall how forcefully I was struck by my own first encounter with the presumption of innocence. Even back then I thought that, if I was indeed to become a lawyer, I would have to work in the criminal law. I was hooked by the simplicity

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll