Analysis of Evidential Burden, Presumption of Innocence & UWO Laws

This essay provides a detailed analysis of several key concepts within the law of evidence. It begins by examining whether the imposition of an evidential burden violates Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, referencing the Woolmington v. DPP case and relevant ECHR rulings. The essay then discusses unexplained wealth orders (UWOs), their purpose under the Criminal Finance Act 2017, and their role in combating money laundering. Further, it analyzes the shortcomings in the lower court's decision in the Woolmington case. Finally, the essay explores the balance between the presumption of innocence and the reverse legal burden, highlighting the fundamental rights of individuals and the importance of fair trials. The document includes references to various legal articles and publications to support its arguments.

LAW of EVIDENCE

Table of content
1. Should the Imposition of Evidential Burden be considered as Violating Article 6(2)?.................3
2. Unexplained Wealth Order.............................................................................................................4
3. What was missing in the decision of lower court in Woolmington?..............................................5
4. The Balance Between the Presumption of Innocent and the Reverse Legal Burden....................5
References...................................................................................................................................................7

1. Should the Imposition of Evidential Burden be considered as Violating Article 6(2)?
As according to Article 6(2) of European convention of Human Rights there is been
observed that, everyone who is being charged with criminal offence shall have to be presumed
that they are innocent until their guilt is being proved by law. In case of Woolmington v. DPP
there is being referred that presumption of innocence will be dependent on the one golden thread
that is being run on English criminal law there is being let out that both the principal and also for
the clarity the burden on the defense will be dependent on the evidences1. But as according to
ECHR there is being provided that they will not be made any ruling that can affect to any kind of
reverse onus which will be inevitably give rise to all the incompatibility for the convention. It is
been clarified that all the presumption regarding to fact and law will be operated by the legal
system and it will not prohibit any such presumptions in principle there is also being required to
manage certain limits in respect to all the criminal law. As in the article 6(2) there is being given
an absolute term that it will not be regarded as imposing any of the absolute prohibition that will
be on the reverse owner’s clause. As according to ECHR, there is being provided that all the
criminal statutes which are being imposed through reverse the partial burden of proof but not
being necessary compatible in the convention there is been given that all the legal, persuasive
burden and also the evidential burden will require the accuse to provide sufficient evidence in
order to raise the issue that is being deter mind with the facts. Evidential burden has no right to
breach the presumption of innocence and will be compatible with article 6(2) of ECHR2. Thus, it
can be said that the imposition of evidential burden will be a kind of violating of the article 6(2)
but it will not lead any inevitably to incompatibility. In order to gain deep persuasive burden
there will be required the accused to prove the balance of probabilities with the determination of
their guilt and innocence. It will be outline on three major categories which will be the
1 Djeffal C, 'Law Of The European Convention On Human Rights Cases And Materials On The
European Convention On Human Rights The European Convention On Human Rights' (2021) 50
Archiv des Völkerrechts
2 Vakulenko A, 'COMPLIANCE OF UKRAINIAN LAW AND PRACTICE WITH ARTICLE 5
OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS' (2020) 4 Human Rights Law
Review

 Mandatory presumption of guilt
 Discretionary presumptions
 Exemptions dependent on the circumstances.
2. Unexplained Wealth Order
Unexplained wealth order UWO is mainly a type of orders given by British court in order
to compel the targets so that there can be made a revelation regarding their unexplained wealth.
This is being introduced by criminal finance act 2017 in section 1 and 2 and are also being
governed in the part 4 of proceeds of crime act. All such individuals who fail in order to account
all their assets then all their assets are seized through the enforcement authorities like NCA
national crime agency. The ordinance generally has the power to fight from all the money
laundering which lies on the reverse owner is Principle, all such orders are usually being
ineffective as the defendant can thereby provide the explanation for the source of wealth3. And in
case when the evidence is not being proven that the defendant will win all such arguments. The
information which is being obtained through and explain the order will not be used in the
criminal proceeding it will have the regulatory and statutory scheme to manifest and manage all
such details. Let me name is to manage and remove all the money laundering risk which has
created major impact and also to manage the design through which the disrupted economic crime
can be removed out. The criminal finance act 2017 which usually a target all such people who
are being involved in serious crime and who also holds any public office outside Europe4. There
will be allowed the law enforcement to manage and apply court order to explain the interest in
the property and the way in which they adopt and it.
3. What was missing in the decision of lower court in Woolmington?
In Woolmington case there is been seen that judge Swift ruled in that case which are
being given was so strong against all the burden of proof to show that shooting which was being
made was accidental in that case the appeal which was being raised to court of criminal appeal
3 Stringer-Fehlow M, and Steen P, 'You Will Or Uwon’T: Trustees’ Compliance With
Unexplained Wealth Orders' (2021) 25 Trusts & Trustees
4 Fletcher T, 'From Harrods To Billionaires’ Row: Unexplained Wealth Orders After Hajiyeva
And Baker' (2020) 26 Trusts & Trustees

regarding the misdirection to the jury was being enforced5. As in all the charge of murder there is
being seen that the fact of killing is needed to be proved in all the circumstances where the
accident has taken place in the laws should always being presume the defendant in all the
instance will have to stand on the same foot that all the other defendant will be in the matter is
that justifies or elevate the proof. There was seen that in all the lower court there is been
analyzed that the prosecution has not made the case and the prisoner to be entitled to an acquittal
for all the matters with charge and the trials are being recorded as the principle of prosecution
there is required to prove the guilt of the prisoner as according to common law of England6. In
this case the lower court has taken time in contrasting all the positions of the criminal law and
when the decision is being relied upon the first account law the accuse was not being made in
title to be represented in the court.
4. The Balance Between the Presumption of Innocent and the Reverse Legal Burden
Presumption of innocence lies on the principle that all the individuals will be considered
innocent until they are being proven guilty. This is the foremost in the first principal led by
Blackstone. It contemplates that presumption of innocence is taken to manage the
maintenance of status quo of defendant. It is important for all the persons to gain the
fundamental rights and to follow up the fair trial in their convictions by managing the
balance between the superpower and their other important rights and duties regarding to
safeguarding measures7. On the other hand, reverse burden lies on the defendant to establish
a particular issue that is being focused on them as it reverses all the normal aligned situation
through which the prosecution will have to prove all such facts beyond reasonable doubt8. All
5 Fairall P, 'Unravelling The Golden Thread - Woolmington In The High Court Of Australia'
[2016] Bond Law Review
6 Davies J, 'THE CHANGING LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTING:
LOWER COURT APPLICATIONS OF THE HOCHFEDER DECISION' (2017) 15 American
Business Law Journal
7 Kaganas F, 'Parental Involvement: A Discretionary Presumption' (2018) 38 Legal Studies
8 McCuskey E, 'On Drugs: Preemption, Presumption, And Remedy' (2018) 38 Journal of Legal
Medicine

the transactions which are being made between the parties with active confidence in good
faith will only person regarding their burden of proof whereas the presumption of his
innocence is mainly a fundamental right of common law that also provides the human rights
committee to states all the in positions regarding the prosecution and also the guarantees and
charge that no guilt can be presumed till the time the charge is being proven through a
reasonable doubt.

References
Djeffal C, 'Law Of The European Convention On Human Rights Cases And Materials On The
European Convention On Human Rights The European Convention On Human Rights' (2021) 50
Archiv des Völkerrechts
Vakulenko A, 'COMPLIANCE OF UKRAINIAN LAW AND PRACTICE WITH ARTICLE 5
OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS' (2020) 4 Human Rights Law
Review
Stringer-Fehlow M, and Steen P, 'You Will Or Uwon’T: Trustees’ Compliance With
Unexplained Wealth Orders' (2021) 25 Trusts & Trustees
Fletcher T, 'From Harrods To Billionaires’ Row: Unexplained Wealth Orders After Hajiyeva
And Baker' (2020) 26 Trusts & Trustees
Fairall P, 'Unravelling The Golden Thread - Woolmington In The High Court Of Australia'
[2016] Bond Law Review
Davies J, 'THE CHANGING LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTING:
LOWER COURT APPLICATIONS OF THE HOCHFEDER DECISION' (2017) 15 American
Business Law Journal
Kaganas F, 'Parental Involvement: A Discretionary Presumption' (2018) 38 Legal Studies
McCuskey E, 'On Drugs: Preemption, Presumption, And Remedy' (2018) 38 Journal of Legal
Medicine