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
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll