ECHR The victim of a motor accident was able to identify the offending car, or even whether the driver was male or female. The car was owned by the applicant’s mother, and he denied driving at the time. There was no evidence that he had been driving beyond unsupported police observations that the car was mainly driven by the applicant. His conviction at trial was upheld on appeal.
Held: The Court had to ascertain that the proceedings as a whole were fair. In a criminal trial that included observance of the presumption of innocence. A court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused had committed the offence charged. The burden of proof was on the prosecution and any doubt should benefit the accused. The presumption of innocence is infringed where the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defence. The case was not one in which adverse inferences could properly be drawn from the silence of the accused.
Citations:
[2001] ECHR 225, 33501/96, [2001] ECHR 228
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Road Traffic
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166062