In criminal cases, the general principle is that when it comes to proving the guilt of a defendant, the burden of proving it lies with the prosecution. In Woolmington v DPP, it was stated in Lord Sankey's judgment that; “In the whole web of English criminal law there is always a golden thread, namely the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the prisoner, without prejudice to...the defense of insanity and also subject to any legal exception ”. Since Lord Sankey's judgment the following circumstances have been established in which the accused bears the legal burden of proof in criminal proceedings; when the accused pleads the defense of insanity, when a statute or an Act of Parliament expressly imposes the legal burden of proof on the defence, and when a statute or an Act of Parliament implicitly imposes the legal burden of proof on the defence. An accused person will also bear the legal burden of proof of the statutory defense of diminished responsibility which is covered by section 2(2) of the Homicide Act 1957. In the Lambert Ali and Jordan cases, the Court of Appeal held that imposing the The legal burden of proving diminished responsibility of the defense does not violate Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In relation to the express statutory exceptions to the general rule also called 'Reverse Onus Provisions', i.e. one of the circumstances in which the legal burden of proof in a criminal proceeding rests on an accused person, there is the possibility that such provisions are contrary to or incompatible with Article 6, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for this; 'Every person charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty by... by document.......C. 352.The Law of Evidence, 3rd edition, Ian Dennis, page 451;Sweet & Maxwell.The Law of Evidence, 3rd edition, Ian Dennis, page 451;Sweet & Maxwell.The Law of Evidence, 3rd edition, Ian Dennis, page 452;Sweet & Maxwell.(1975) QB 27.(1975) QB 27.The Law of Evidence, 3rd edition, Ian Dennis, page 452;Sweet & Maxwell.The Law of Evidence, 3rd edition, Ian Dennis, page 452; Sweet & Maxwell.The Law of Evidence, 3rd edition, Ian Dennis, page 452;Sweet & Maxwell.(1987) AC 352, HL.(1935) AC 462, HL.Adrian Zuckerman, The Third Exception to the Woolmington Rule ( 1976 ) 92 LQR 402.The Law of Evidence, 3rd edition, Ian Dennis, page 453;Sweet & Maxwell.(1987) AC 352, HL.Patrick Healy, Proof and Policy: No Golden Threads (1987) Crim; LR 355; The Law of Evidence, 3rd edition, Ian Dennis, page 455; Sweet and Maxwell.