Attorney General v Malta: 10 Dec 1991

The applcant challenged a provision which imposed criminal liability on a director of a body which had committed a criminal offence ‘unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence’. The Commission found the application to be manifestly ill-founded. The applicant was provided under the legislation with the possibility of exculpating himself, and the Maltese courts enjoyed a genuine freedom of assessment. The provision had not been applied to the applicant in a manner incompatible with the presumption of innocence.


Unreported, 10 December 1991, 16641/90


Human Rights


CitedSalabiaku 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, . .

Cited by:

CitedSheldrake 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

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.218812