As the famous "Golden Thread" speech given by Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP goes; “No matter what the charge or the place of trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the prisoner's guilt is part of English common law and no attempt to undermine it can be entertained.” In simpler terms, the general rule above is that the prosecution has the legal burden to prove the elements of the crime and that the accused need only raise a defense on a burden that is merely evidential. A legal burden is one where there is a duty to prove, which constitutes a burdensome responsibility and would generally fall on the prosecution. A judge would direct a jury on the burden of proof and failure to do so or giving incorrect directions would result in an overturned conviction. On the other hand, an evidentiary burden is a much lighter burden, where it requires the defendant to simply raise the defense, rather than prove it. In addition to the general rule created by Viscount Sankey, there were also exceptions, where the legal burden was shifted to the defendant to prove his defense on a balance of probabilities. The two exceptions given by Viscount Sankey are the insanity defense and inversions of law. The defense of insanity will require application of the McNaghten Rules if pleaded by the defendant, who will have to prove the McNaghten Rules on a legal burden based on a balance of probabilities. If the prosecution alleges insanity, the case in question would be Robertson, in which the defendant is said to have punched his mother to the ground and stamped on her head and thigh while wearing heavy boots or shoes. In this case, the burden on the prosecution is legal, to satisfy the jury you have to be... middle of paper... actually in favor of the accused and the burden of proof on the prosecution is heavy, but not absolute. The reverse persuasive burden requires the defendant to prove his innocence. This shifts the balance heavily in favor of law enforcement. It can be expected to lead to more convictions, but also more convictions that may be wrong. 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, Article 6(2) appears to trump the Woolmington rule as it is clear that it has had a greater impact. It is argued that the difference between the two authorities is that Woolmington provides a common law provision whilst Article 6(2) has a more statutory force as it is strengthened by the Human Rights Act 1998.