The court heard appeals from rulings under the 2004 Act.
Held: In section 1, the hunting of a wild mammal did not include the search for an animal with a view to flushing it from cover. As to the exemptions, the operation of the 1980 Act and 2004 Act together meant that the evidential burden of raising the possibility of an exemption applying lay with the defendant, but once that was discharged, the legal burden of disproving the exemption lay with the prosecution. Orders were made accordingly.
References: [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin), Times 17-Feb-2009, (2009) 173 JP 169, [2010] 1 QB 224, [2009] 3 All ER 726, [2010] 2 WLR 497
Links: Bailii
Judges: Sir Anthony May, President and Mr Justice Maddison
Statutes: Hunting Act 2004, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 101
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Regina v Hunt (Richard) HL 1987 ([1987] 1 AC 352, (1986) 84 Cr App R 163, [1986] 3 WLR 1115, [1987] AC 352, [1987] 1 All ER 1)
The court objected to the insistence on leaving the burden throughout a prosecution on the defendant on the ground that ‘the discharge of an evidential burden proves nothing – it merely raises an issue’. The House emphasised the special nature of . . - Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004 (, , [2004] UKHL 43, [2005] 1 AC 264, Times 14-Oct-04, [2005] 1 All ER 237, [2004] 3 WLR 976, [2005] RTR 13, (2004) 168 JP 669, (2004) 17 BHRC 339, [2004] All ER (D) 169)
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: . . - Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001 (Times 06-Jul-01, , , Gazette 31-Aug-01, [2001] 3 WLR 206, [2001] UKHL 37, [2002] 2 AC 545, [2002] 1 All ER 2, [2001] HRLR 55, [2001] 2 Cr App R 28, [2001] UKHRR 1074, [2001] 3 All ER 577)
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.282623 br>