Legal Research
Cases
Woolmington v DPP

Woolmington v DPP

Case [1935] UKHL 1

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is coming soon as we're improving how the document is presented.

Details

Case: [1935] UKHL 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Most Recent Citation

Director-General of the Department of Land and Water Conservation v Bailey [2003] NSWLEC 160

Cases Citing This Decision

31

Citation:Forrester v The King [2024] NTCCA 15
Citation 1 (Para 4)

…a defence, the ultimate onus of proof with respect to self-defence does not rest on the accused. Since Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] UKHL 1; (1935) AC 462, it has been clearly established that once the evidence discloses the possibility that the fatal act was done in self-defence , a burd…
Attorney-General's Reference No 1 of 2022 [2024] TASCCA 2
Citation 2

…pointed out in Mamote-Kulang v. The Queen [1964] HCA 21; (1964) 111 CLR 62, at pp 76-77. But since Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] UKHL 1; (1935) AC 462 it has come to be recognized that the prosecution bears the ultimate onus of negativing 'defences' under the Codes: see Packett v. The…
R v Salim [2023] NSWLC 8
Citation 3 (Para 3)

…ke of fact is not a “defence” as that term is applied to the criminal law following the decision of Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] UKHL 1; [1935] AC 462. A defence requires an accused to establish a matter on the balance of probabilities and the example in Woolmington v Director of Public P…
R v Ngakyunkwokka [2023] QCA 85
Citation 4

…CLR 158; [1986] HCA 76, considered Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462; [1935] UKHL 1, considered COUNSEL: S C Holt KC, with M J Jackson, for the appellant G J Cummings for the respondent SOLICITORS: Robertson O’Gorman for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent…
R v DB [2022] NSWCCA 87
Citation 5

…accused was "accidental". But, as I have pointed out, such language is ambiguous for it may equally cover an unwilled act and is often so used. Cf Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462, at p 472. In that case, (1935) AC, at p 482 the description "unintentional" appears to be used to cover an act which was involuntary or unwille…
R v PS [2022] QChC 5
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…The defendant had no obligation to prove any matter in the trial, least of all his innocence. [35] Woolmington v The Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] UKHL 1; (1935) AC 462.…
R v Green [2022] QDC 36
Citation 7

…, s 210, s 218 R v DAH (2004) 150 A Crim R 14 Woolmington v The Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] UKHL 1 COUNSEL: J Shaw for the prosecution D Caruana for the defendant…
R v Hma [2022] QDC 4
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…. The defendant had no obligation to prove any matter in the trial, least of all his innocence. [2] Woolmington v The Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] UKHL 1; (1935) AC 462.…
R v RT (No. 2) [2020] QDC 158
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…. The defendant had no obligation to prove any matter in the trial, least of all his innocence. [2] Woolmington v The Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] UKHL 1; (1935) AC 462.…
Police v Hanton [2018] SASC 96
Citation 10 (Para 18)

…cure evidence of the guilt of persons charged with crimes.” “No matter what the charge or where the trial,” said Viscount Sankey , LC, in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462 at pp 481-2), “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 d…
Nchouki v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 28
Citation 11

…paniment of the other matter shown. That direction was, we think, correct. The rule laid down in Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions [ [1935] UKHL 1; [1935] AC 462, 481-2], that the burden of proving every element of an offence charged rests at all times upon the prosecution, was expressed to be "…
Cheryala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 43
Citation 12 (Para 3)

…al proceedings will ordinarily be construed as imposing the evidential burden. In Dalla, Logan J went on to say (at 150): [27] In Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462 at 481, Viscount Sankey LC famously observed of the principle that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused that it was “the golden thread” of…
R v Crickitt [2016] NSWSC 1738
Citation 13 (Para 2)

…incumbent upon the Crown to prove each and every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused needs to do nothing and prove nothing ( Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462).…
Dalla v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 998
Citation 14 (Para 12)

…In Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462 at 481, Viscount Sankey LC famously observed of the principle that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused that it was “the golden thread” of English criminal law. That golden thread still extends to Australia: see, for example, Environmental Protection Authority v Cal…
Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v John Checchia [2011] NSWCA 101
Citation 15 (Para 1)

…dence of a person's subjective purpose or intention. Rather, purpose or intention is to be inferred from the whole of the evidence: Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1; [1935] AC 462 at 481; Peters v R [1998] HCA 7; 192 CLR 493 at [134]. The evidence of the person whose purpose is in question may be taken into accou…
Chahine v R [2006] NSWCCA 179
Citation 16

…Criminal Appeal, 17 February 1992, BC9203055) Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285 Aslett v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 49 Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462 R v Youssef (1990) 50 A Crim R 1 R v Kanaan [2005] NSWCCA 385 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 R v Villa [2005] NSWCCA 4 R v Wilson (…
Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd [1990] HCA 41
Citation 17

…8. The Act is silent as to the onus of proof in relation to the offence created by s.21. That is not unusual for the rule as to the onus of proof in a criminal proceeding is clear, namely, that "it is the duty of the prosecution to prove (a defendant's) guilt subject ... to the defence of insanity a…
R v O'Connor [1980] HCA 17
Citation 18

…15. In days before the common law fundamentals of criminal liability with which we are now familiar had been educed and declared, it was said that drunkenness was no defence to or excuse for the commission of crime: indeed, it might be an exacerbation of the offence. This formulation still retains s…
Cameron v Holt [1980] HCA 5
Citation 19

…13. Being of this opinion, there is no need for me to discuss other matters which have occupied the attention of the magistrate and the Full Court. In the first place, I agree with the magistrate that if the respondent was unaware of the terms of question 8 and of the endorsement on the back of the …
Johns v The Queen [1980] HCA 3
Citation 20

…18. Again, references in the older works of authority to "probable" or "likely" must be understood in their setting in time, before Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462 and at a time when juries, instructed to adopt an essentially objective approach, did not so readily encoun…
Moffa v The Queen [1977] HCA 14
Citation 21

…19. ONUS OF PROOF. The onus is on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the killing was unprovoked (Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462 ). Although, as Lord Sankey said there, "It is sufficient if the accused raises a doubt", it is not necessary for the a…
Yager v The Queen [1977] HCA 10
Citation 22

…19. A judge may never direct a jury to convict. The Supreme Court in the United States of America stated: "A judge may never direct a verdict of guilty no matter how conclusive the evidence" (Brotherhood of Carpenters v. United States (1946) 330 US 395, at p 408 (91 Law Ed 973, at p 985) ). Lord San…
Johnson v The Queen [1976] HCA 44
Citation 23

…36. Because of Woolmington's Case (Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462 , it is submitted here that the common law is that the Crown must establish that the killing was unprovoked where there is any material on which it might reasonably be thought that there was a case of pro…
Kelleher v The Queen [1974] HCA 48
Citation 24

…10. Upon the question of corroboration more needs to be said. There was no direction given on the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim of a sexual assault and no such direction was asked for by the applicant's counsel at the trial. The Court of Criminal Appeal determined…
Samuels v Stokes [1973] HCA 62
Citation 25

…3. As, in my opinion, proof of unlawfulness in the purpose of the respondent's remaining in the intersection of Pirie and Hyde Streets was no necessary part of the proof of an offence under s. 18 (2), I do not consider that this was a case in which, if evidence had been given which did no more than …
Ryan v The Queen [1967] HCA 2
Citation 26

…21. I have carefully searched and read the reported cases and the little that has been written by commentators on this aspect of responsibility for crime. But in the end it seems to me that reference need only be made to two decisions of the House of Lords: first, Woolmington v. Director of Public P…
Wendo v The Queen [1963] HCA 19
Citation 27

…2. The second matter I wish to refer to is the view that in order to render a confessional statement admissible in evidence it must be established beyond reasonable doubt that it was made voluntarily. I am not prepared to say what are the limits of the application of general propositions laid down i…
Parker v The Queen [1963] HCA 14
Citation 28

…8. The proviso is in the following terms: "Provided always that in no case shall the crime be reduced from murder to manslaughter, by reason of provocation, unless the jury find: - (a) That such provocation was not intentionally caused by any word or act on the part of the accused; (b) That it was r…
Groves, Peter Douglas v The Queen [1981] FCA 18
Citation 29

…His Honour there pointed out that it was under the influence of that principle that the proviso to s.6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to the effect that "the Court may notwithstanding that it is of opinion that the point or points raised by the appeal might be decided in favour to the appellant …
Environment Protection Authority v Terrace Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2012] NSWLEC 216
Citation 30 (Para 1)

…t it is for the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt, recognising that the obligation is subject to any statutory exception ( Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1; [1935] AC 462 at 481). Applying this principle and cognisant of the need to interpret legislation consistently with it, the question to be determine…
Director-General of the Department of Land and Water Conservation v Bailey [2003] NSWLEC 160
Citation 31

…ication for not complying with the obligation to obtain development consent ( Avel Pty Ltd v Multicoin Amusements Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 88. See also Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462 at 481 and Director of Public Prosecutions v United Telecasters Sydney Ltd (1989-1991) 168 CLR 594).…

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0

AI Chat coming soon