Like Viscount Sankey's famous 'golden thread' speech in Woolmington v DPP; “Whatever the charge or the venue of the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the prisoner's guilt is part of English common law and no attempt to mitigate it can be entertained.” In simpler terms, the general rule above is that the prosecution bears the legal burden of proving the elements of the offense and the accused need only present his defense on the basis of a charge which is simply conclusive. the burden of proof, which constitutes a heavy responsibility and generally falls on the prosecution. A judge would instruct the jury as to the burden of proof and, failing to respond or giving an incorrect instruction, a conviction would be overturned. On the other hand, the burden of proof is much lighter, because it requires the accused to simply invoke the defense, rather than prove it. Besides the general rule created by Viscount Sankey, there were also exceptions, where the burden was shifted to the accused to prove his defense on the balance of probabilities. The two exceptions invoked by Viscount Sankey are the defense of insanity and inversion of the law. The insanity defense will require the application of the McNaghten Rules if alleged by the accused, who will have to prove the McNaghten Rules with a legal burden on the balance of probabilities. If the prosecution alleges insanity, the case in question would be that of Robertson, where the defendant allegedly knocked his mother to the ground and stomped on her head and thigh while wearing heavy boots or shoes. Here the burden of the prosecution is legal, it is about satisfying the jury middle of paper ...... favorably to the accused and the burden of proof brought by the prosecution is heavy , but not absolute. The reverse burden of persuasion requires the accused to prove his or her innocence. This tilts the balance heavily in favor of law enforcement. This can be expected to result in more convictions, but also more possibly wrongful convictions. To be compatible with the presumption of innocence, this readjustment must be justified. It can be said that the Woolmington Rule and Article 6(2) of the ECHR have the same meaning: the presumption of innocence. However, section 6(2) appears to trump the Woolmington rule because it is clear that it had a greater impact. It is argued that the difference between the two authorities is that Woolmington contains a common law rule whereas section 6(2) has more statutory value as it is reinforced by the Human Rights Act. 1998.