Where the defendant was charged with receiving stolen goods well knowing them to be stolen, the onus of proof lies always on the prosecution. Once the prosection has established that the defendant was in possession of goods recently stolen, the jury might conclude his guilt. But if the defendant provides an explanation which the jury thought might reasonably be true, he was entitled to be acquitted even if the jury were not convinced of its truth. The prosecutor would have failed in his duty to cast doubt upon it satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.
Citations:
(1914) 84 LJKB 396, (1914) 112 LT 480, (1914) 79 JP 184, (1914) 31 TLR 88, (1914) 59 Sol Jo 288
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-May-1935
Golden Thread of British Justice – Proof of Intent
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his wife. She had left him and returned to live with her mother. He went to the house. He said he intended to frighten her that he would kill himself if she did not return. He wired a shotgun to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223129
