Click the case name for better results:

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: ‘The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption … Continue reading Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: HL 14 Oct 2004

Maguire, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland): SC 21 Mar 2018

The appellant faced a criminal trial. He was granted legal aid for two counsel. He asked for two particular junior counsel, but the certificate required him to instruct leading counsel and a junior. He objected that this deprived him of the right to his chosen counsel. Held: The appeal failed. The purpose of a defendant’s … Continue reading Maguire, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland): SC 21 Mar 2018

Regina v G: CACD 12 Apr 2006

The defendant pleaded guilty to the rape of a twelve year old girl on the agreed basis that he had believed her to be 15, but had been advised that given her age, his belief was immaterial. He now appealed saying that the presumption infringed his human rights. Held: The question was whether the section … Continue reading Regina v G: CACD 12 Apr 2006

Van Offeren v The Netherlands: ECHR 5 Jul 2005

Confiscation proceedings fell to be treated as part of the process of sentencing after conviction and did not, of themselves, involve charging the offender with offences other than those of which he had been convicted and which had given rise to the sentencing process. Citations: 19581/04 Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 6.2 Jurisdiction: Human … Continue reading Van Offeren v The Netherlands: ECHR 5 Jul 2005

Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 24 Feb 2003

The defendant challenged the application of the section, under which he was deemed to have intended to drive a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol, unless he could prove it was not his intent to drive, saying this infringed his right to a fair trial. Held: The section must be read down to comply … Continue reading Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 24 Feb 2003

Barnfather v London Borough of Islington Education Authority, Secretary of State for Education and Skills: QBD 7 Mar 2003

The appellant was convicted of the crime of being a parent whose child had failed to attend school regularly. She challenged saying that the offence required no guilty act on her part, but was one of strict liability, and contrary to her human rights. Held: Although the offence is one of strict liability, there is … Continue reading Barnfather v London Borough of Islington Education Authority, Secretary of State for Education and Skills: QBD 7 Mar 2003

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Peter Elliot: Admn 18 Jul 2001

The applicant sought to challenge an order for his return to Hong Kong under the Act. He said that the ordnance under which he was to be tried, and anti-corruption statute, infringed his human rights by transferring to him the burden of proof. The Secretary of State argued that an English court should not impose … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Peter Elliot: Admn 18 Jul 2001

Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: CACD 21 Mar 2003

The defendant had been tried for an offence under the Act of being a member of a proscribed organisation, and professing membership of Hamas. At trial the Crown accepted an evidential burden, that the offence had to be read down to comply with the defendant’s article 6.2 rights, and the defendant was acquitted. A reference … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: CACD 21 Mar 2003

Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering): CACD 20 Nov 2002

The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof. Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to statutory exceptions. To place a legal (persuasive) burden of proof on the defendant … Continue reading Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering): CACD 20 Nov 2002

Regina v Johnstone: HL 22 May 2003

The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act could become criminal. The prosecutor appealed the decision of … Continue reading Regina v Johnstone: HL 22 May 2003

Webster v Regina: CACD 1 Dec 2010

The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 1889 Act for making a corrupt gift to a local government officer. He said that the 1916 Act placed an unfair burden on him to prove that the gift was not corruptly given. Held: The appeal succeeded. Article 6.2 does not provide an absolute prohibition against the … Continue reading Webster v Regina: CACD 1 Dec 2010

Salabiaku v France: ECHR 7 Oct 1988

A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, . .

Regina v Matthews: CACD 25 Mar 2003

The defendant appealed his conviction for carrying a bladed article in public, on the basis that the Act transferred to him the onus of establishing the statutory defence.
Held: There were four steps to be applied in assessing the case. Was . .

Schenk v Switzerland: ECHR 12 Jul 1988

The applicant had faced charges of hiring someone to kill his wife. He complained about the use of a recording of his telephone conversation with the man he hired recorded unlawfully by that man. Held: The ECHR does not address issues about the admissibility of evidence in the abstract or to deal with them as … Continue reading Schenk v Switzerland: ECHR 12 Jul 1988

Phillips v United Kingdom: ECHR 5 Jul 2001

Having been convicted of drug trafficking, an application was made for a confiscation under the 1994 Act. On the civil balance of proof, and applying the assumptions under the Act, an order was made. The applicant claimed that his article 6 rights had been infringed. The respondent government said the application for an order was … Continue reading Phillips v United Kingdom: ECHR 5 Jul 2001

Regina v Williams: CACD 30 Mar 2001

A breach of article 6.2 of the Convention in a trial need not automatically lead to the conclusion that the conviction was unsafe. The judge had failed to direct the jury to the effect that the offence of robbery required proof of the element of dishonesty. The court was entitled to conclude that that would … Continue reading Regina v Williams: CACD 30 Mar 2001

Savickas And Others v Lithuania (Dec): ECHR 15 Oct 2013

ECHR Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 6.272 of the Civil Code as interpreted by domestic courts: effective remedy: inadmissible Facts – The applicants were serving or former judges or their lawful heirs. Following a reduction in judges’ salaries by 30% in 1999, the applicants instituted proceedings before … Continue reading Savickas And Others v Lithuania (Dec): ECHR 15 Oct 2013

AR, Regina (on The Application of) v The Greater Manchester Police and Another: Admn 5 Sep 2013

The claimant sought judicial review of the enhanced criminal record issued by the respondents when he sought a licence as a private hire driver. He had been tried and acquitted on a charge of rape.
Held: The request for review failed.