REPRIEVED MURDERER

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18756, 12 July 1935, Page 9

REPRIEVED MURDERER

LAW LORDS’ ACTION PRINCIPLES OUTLINED CROWN’S RESPONSIBILITY LONDON, A Lay 14.“Tlie principle that, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England, and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.” This was a passage from a judg meat in t!.e House of Lords yesterday setting forth the reasons why the highest court in the land had -decided that Reginald Woulmingtou, 21, a Somerset labourer, should nut be hanged. Woolmington was not present; to hear this exposition, of the law. lie had endured the ordeal of two .murder trials at Assizes and two appeals from the verdict of guilty and death sentence. At# the first trial, at Somerset Assizes, the jury failed to agree, and tiie judge ordered a retrial. Another jury, at the second' trial, at Bristol Assizes, took an hour and a half to reach their verdict of guilty. Tlio Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed his appeal, It was then that Woolmington took the case to the House ,of Lords. j The Law Lords allowed his appeal, and he was instantly released, the verdict and sentence both being set aside. In view of the importance of the legal issue raised, their lordships, however, did not give their reasons till yesterday. The main ground of the appeal was that Mr Justice Swift had misdirected the jury in telling them that the onus was upon the defence to satisfy them that the shooting of his wife was, as he said, accidental. BACK TO KING CANUTE’S DAYS. Only one judgment was delivered. It was given by the Lord Chancellor, who said it was true, as stated by the Court of Criminal Appeal, that there was apparent authority for the Jaw ns laid down by Mr Justice Swift, but their lordships had had the advantage of a prolonged and exhaustive inquiry dealing with the matter in debate from the earliest times—an advantage which was not shared by cither of the courts below. Indeed, Their Lordships were referred to legal propositions dating- as far back as the reign of King Canute (994-103(1), but he did not think it was necessary to go back as far as that, “l's it correct to say,” asked the Lord Chancellor, “that there may arise, in the course of a criminal trial, a situation in which it is incumbent upon the accused to prove his innocence?” Answering this question, His Lordship said throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread was always to be seen: That it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the. prisoner’s guilt, subject to the defence ,of insanity and also to any statutory exception. “If at the end of tne whole of the case,"'Lord Sankey continued, “there is a reasonable doubt created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or prisoner as to whether prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case mul the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. “No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England, and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. “When dealing with a murder case tho Crown must prove: “(a) Death as the result of a voluntary act of tne accused; and “(b) Malice of the accused. “It may prove malice .either expressly or by implication, for malice may bo implied where death occurs as the result of a voluntary act of the accused which is intentional and unprovoked. When evidence of death and malice lias been given (this is a question for the jury), accused is entitled to show by evidence, ,or by examination of the circumstances adduced by the Crown, that the act on hi:-: part which caused death was' cithci unintentional or provoked. “If the jury are either satisfied with his explanation, or, upon a review of all the evidence, arc left in reasonable doubt whether—even if his explanation be not accepted—the act was unintentional or provoked, the prisoner is entitled to be acquitted. “It is not the law of England to say, as was said in the summing-up in the present case: ‘lf tlic Crown satisfies j-ou that this woman died at the prisoner’s hands then he has to show that there tire circumstances tc be found iri the evidence which have been given from the witness-box in this easo which alleviate the crime so that it is only manslaughter, or which excused the homicide altogether by showing that it was a pure accident.’ ” The Lord Chancellor went on to say that Their Lordships were asked to follow the court of Criminal Appeal and to apply the proviso of Section 1907, which says: “The Court may, notwithstanding that they are of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favor of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if they consider no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.” There was no doubt, tho Lord Chancellor said, ample jurisdiction to apply that proviso in a case ,of murder, be ho added: “Wo cannot say that, if the jury lmd been properly directed they would have inevitably come Lo the same conclusion.”