Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:56:25.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Continuing departures from Woolmington: a South Asian perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

G. L. Peiris
G. L. Peiris*
Affiliation:
University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent trends in England represent a dramatic erosion of the sanctity of the rule in Woolmington. These developments are of particular significance today, in the light of the virtually open-ended character of some of the contemporary departures from Woolmington’s case.

A decade ago, in Edwards, the Court of Appeal purported to identify in the common law a line of authority which established, as a result of experience and the need to ensure that justice is done both to the community and to the defendants, an exception to the fundamental rule of the criminal law that the prosecution must prove every element of the offence charged. The effect of this exception, which the court sought to extract from rules of pleading, is that where an enactment, on its true construction, prohibits the doing of acts subject to provisos, exceptions and the like, the prosecution is entitled to rely on the exception, with the result that the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that it was lawful for him to do the prohibited act in the circumstances.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , November 1987 , pp. 279 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462.

2. [1975] 1 QB 27.

3. See, for criticism, A. A. S. Zuckerman, ‘The Third Exception to the Woolmington Rule’ (1976) 12 LQR 402 at 403–410.

4. R v Hunt [1986] 2 WLR 225.

5. [1987] 1 All ER 1.

6. At 11 per Lord Griffiths.

7. R v Edwards [1975] QB 27 at 39–40 per Lawton LJ.

8. Shechan v Justices of Cork [1907] IR 5 at 11 per Gibson J.

9. Section 105 of the Codes of Evidence of India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Singapore.

10. Section 3 of these codes.

11. Jayasena v R (1969) 72 NLR 313 at 316 per Lord Devlin.

12. No 20 of 1927.

13. Section 80(3) (b).

14. Nair v Saundias (1936) 37 NLR 439.

15. No 3 of 1897.

16. Reg 46 issued under this Ordinance.

17. Sanitary Inspector, Mirigama v Thangamani Nadar (1953) 55 NLR 302.

18. No. 14 of 1951.

19. Section 150(10).

20. Daniel v Lewis (1959) 61 NLR 157.

21. Bribery Act No 11 of 1954, s 19(e).

22. R v Mohamed Auf (1967) 69 NLR 337.

43. Order No 184 made under Act No 25 of 1950.

24. Section 4(1)(i)(a).

25. A-G v Rahim (1966) 69 NLR 519.

26. No 25 of 1950.

27. Section 4(1).

28. Cornelis v Inspector of Police, Kamburupitiya (1963) 66 NLR 185 at 187.

29. No 8 of 1912, s 18.

30. Solicitor-General v Dharmasena (1964) 67 NLR 68.

31. No 16 of 1907.

32. Section 20.

33. Mudaliyar, Pitigal Korale North v Kiri Banda (1909) 12 NLR 304.

34. No 26 of 1927.

35. Section 41 (b).

36. Perkins v Devadasam (1937) 10 CLW 141.

37. No 43 of 1935.

38. Marambe v John (1946) 47 NLR 526.

39. Excise Ordinance, s 29 supra, s 43 (g).

40. Perera v Benedict (1946) 47 NLR 519 at 522.

41. Section 25(1).

42. Sinnathurai v Sub-Inspector of Police, Vanniniya (1954) 56 NLR 509 at 510.

43. William v Dharmasiri (1962) 64 NLR 479 at 480.

44. Cf Heydon, Cases and Materials on Evidence (1975) p 16.

45. ‘Burden of Proof and the Judicial Process’ (1944) 60 LQR 262 at 280.

46. Nimmo v Alexander Cowan & Sons Ltd [1968] AC 107 at 128 per Lord Wilberforce.

47. [1987] 1 All ER 1 at 10.

48. Ibid.

49. Section 105 of the Codes of Evidence of India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Singapore.

50. Section 4 of these Codes.

51. R v Chandrasekera (1942) 44 NLR 97 at 127–128.

52. Ibid, at 115.

53. Jayasena v R (1969) 72 NLR 313 at 317–318.

54. R v Yahonis Singho (1964) 67 NLR 8.

55. R v Banda (1941) 20 CL Rec 7 at 8.

56. Sinnathamby v Ranaweera (1965) 67 NLR 518 at 519.

57. Section 121(1) and (2).

58. Muttiahpillai v Robert de Silva (1965) 69 NLR 230 at 235.

59. Cumarasamy v de Mel (1950) 52 NLR 253.

60. De Silva v Registrar of Companies (1955) 56 NLR 519 at 522.

61. R v Joyce [1946] AC 347 at 380–381 per Lord Porter; cf R v Cohen [1951] 1 All ER 203.

62. Section 106 of the Codes of Evidence of India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Singapore.

63. Jayasena v R (1969) 72 NLR 313 at 319 per Lord Devlin.

64. (1935) 37 NLR 60.

65. (1936) 38 NLR 208.

66. Cf Ng v R [1958] AC 173.

67. Cross, Evidence (4th edn, 1974) pp 87–88.

68. Muttiahpillai v Robert de Silva (1965) 69 NLR 230 at 234.

69. P. Healy, ‘Hunt and Implied Exceptions to Woolmington’ (1986) 136 NLJ 423.

70. [1968] AC 107 at 124–125.

71. Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes (1lth edn, 1962) p 183.

74. [1987] 1 All ER 1 at 4.

73. At 19.

74. At 11.

75. At 12–13.

76. Nair v Saundias, n 14 supra.

77. Ibid.

78. Mudaliyar, Pitigal Korale North v Kiri Banda (1909) 12 NLR 304.