References: [1970] AC 618
Coram: Lord Devlin
Ratio: Lord Devlin said: ‘Their Lordships do not understand what is meant by the phrase ‘evidential burden of proof’. They understand, of course, that in trial by jury a party may be required to adduce some evidence in support of his case, whether on the general issue or on a particular issue, before that issue is left to the jury. How much evidence has to be adduced depends upon the nature of the requirement. It may be such evidence as, if believed and left uncontradicted and unexplained, could be accepted by the jury as proof. It is doubtless permissible to describe the requirement as a burden, and it may be convenient to call it an evidential burden. But it is confusing to call it a burden of proof. Further, it is misleading to call it a burden of proof, whether described as legal or evidential or by any other adjective, when it can be discharged by the production of evidence that falls short of proof. The essence of the appellant’s case is that he has not got to provide any sort of proof that he was acting in private defence. So it is a misnomer to call whatever it is that he has to provide a burden of proof . .’
Jurisdiction: Commonwealth
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Regina v Daniel CACD (Times 08-Apr-02, Bailii, [2002] EWCA Crim 959, [2003] 1 Cr App R 99)
The defendant appealed a conviction for hiding assets from her receiver following her bankruptcy. He said that recent case law suggested that the burden of establishing the defence under section 352 was evidential only.
Held: The conviction . . - Cited – Lynch v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2001] EWHC Admin 882)
The defendant challenged a conviction for having a locked bladed article in his possession in a public place, on the basis that it placed on him a burden of proof contrary to the convention.
Held: Salabiaku permits a reverse onus but requires . . - Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL (House of Lords, Bailii, [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: . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 10 March 2019
Ref: 184321