To what ExtenT do 'Reverse Burdens' Whittle down the Rule in Essay

To what ExtenT do Reverse Burdens Whittle down the Rule in Woolmington v DPP - screen ExampleThis paper demonstrates how reverse burdens have whittled down the presumption of innocence and how reverse burdens are warrant in appropriate cases. I. The Presumption of Innocence All persons accused of a criminal offence are presumed innocent. The presumption of innocence is codified by Article 6(2) of the ECHR. Article 6(2) which is prefaced by a right to decent trial within a reasonable time,4 provides for the presumption of innocence until guild is proven according to legality.5By virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998, the ECHR is a part of the British law and all national statutes must be read and interpreted in such a way as to be congenial with the ECHR.6 The presumption of innocence means that the prosecution must prove the essential elements of the alleged offence. As Blackstones Criminal Practice notes The phrase the presumption of innocence is often used as a pleasant abbre viation of the common-law rule that, generally speaking, the prosecution bears the burden of proving all the elements in the offence needed to establish guilt.7 Specifically, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed the act constituting the offense (actus reus) and had the requisite bring up of mind (mens rea).8 The common law rule was stated by Lord Sankey in Woolmington v DPP. In the case, the defendant was convicted of murdering his wife as a result of shooting. The defendant argued that the gun was discharged accidentally. The trial hazard ruled that the defendant bore the burden of proving that he lacked the necessary mens rea. Upon appeal, the House of Lords, allowing the appeal ruled that in criminal trials, the common law rule was that the burden of proof showing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt resided with the prosecution.9 Therefore the presumption of innocence is not lost until such time as the prosecution discharges the burden of proof beyond a reasonab le. This is a primary requisite for a fair(a) trial pursuant to Article 6 of the ECHR.10 It was held in McIntosh v Lord Advocate11 that a difficult paradox is created by the presumption of innocence and the publics interest in ensuring that the guilty are convicte