criminal law
2007-08-08 05:34:48 · 5 answers · asked by lilqueen_kay 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It's a British law case that established precedent as far as proving a case beyond reasonable doubt. Prior to that case, the burden of proof had been on the accused. Now the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.
Somewhat different from US law.
2007-08-08 05:49:29 · answer #1 · answered by CGIV76 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Woolmington V Dpp
2016-10-04 01:28:38 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question. I wonder that myself since it's been proven that the cross was actually a pagan symbol. But, the sad thing is that most Christians won't even do the research to see for themselves.
2016-03-12 21:21:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It puts the burden of proof on the prosecution and it supports the presumption that "an accused is innocent until proven guilty.
2014-11-11 00:41:35 · answer #4 · answered by Amanz 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, but I need more information. It appears you have the party names incorrect. There is no case with a party named "Woolmington".
2007-08-08 05:40:07 · answer #5 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋