Presumption of innocence

It was L Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] who said ” it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoners guilt”. The burden of proof or the prosecution is burdened or has the duty or job to prove guilt of defendant and in three ways this relates to the presumption of innocence. The allocation or putting it to the prosecution the burden of proof they must prove all essential elements of their case. So, if it the the prosecutions duty to prove guilt then they have certain elements of the criminal charge that it is on them or they have the legal burden to prove and this is to the standard of proof that equates to beyond a reasonable doubt. Third we have the tier of fact that determines whether the prosecution or crown has discharged their burden or made their case on all of the facts that are relevant to the case. the crown has a legal burden, beyond a reasonable doubt and then duty to discharge or make their entire case which is outlined in the substantive criminal law. All of this is what is part of the presumption of innocence and if the crown has not made out its prima facie case or what they intended to prove then their must be a verdict of not guilty by the tier of fact. This is the ‘Golden thread’ in Woolmington. This means that the defense or the person accused is to be considered innocent until the crown can persuade the court otherwise hence burden of proof is also call burden of persuasion or probative burden.