header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 February 2023 / Simon Parsons
Issue: 8013 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Presumption of innocence: just empty rhetoric?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
111188
Is the ‘golden thread’ of Woolmington wearing thin? Simon Parsons examines the insanity defence & legal burdens of proof
  • The defence of insanity is the only common law exception to the Woolmington thread—the presumption of innocence. An accused person who raises the defence of insanity has the legal burden of proving it.
  • Woolmington should be extended to both limbs of the insanity defence, as it seems morally wrong to impose a legal burden of proof on accused persons in respect of both limbs where they have an extremely limited grasp of reality.

In the famous case of Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462, Reginald Woolmington and Violet Smith were married and set up home together, but Violet was unhappy, so she left Reginald and went home to her mother. Reginald was terribly upset, so he got a gun and decided to go to see Violet to persuade her to return to him. When they met, Reginald said: ‘Are you coming back?’ Violet replied no, and in response

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll