The defendant was charged under the 1989 Act. He complained that the effect of the Act was to put an unfair burden on him to establish that he was unaware of the damaging effects of disclosure.
Held: The Act did not comply with the defendant’s human rights and should be read down so that the burden placed on the defendant was evidential only. Once he brought evidence to raise the issue that he might not have known of the effect of disclosure, it was for the prosecution to prove that he did.
Lord Philips of Worth Matravers CJ said: ‘To require a defendant to prove anything, whether positive or negative, in order to prove that he is not guilty of a crime might, on the face of it, appear to conflict with the presumption of innocence required by Article 6. To interpret Article 6 in this way would, however, conflict in some areas with the requirements of an effective criminal law and the Strasbourg Court has not so interpreted the Article.’
Judges:
Lord Phillips CJ
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Crim 528, Times 13-Mar-2007
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rowe v Regina CACD 15-Mar-2007
The defendant had been convicted of possessing articles for terrorist purposes, namely a notebook with notes setting out how to construct a mortar bomb in his handwriting. There was also a coded list of potential targets.
Held: The decision in . .
Cited – Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Gibbons; Same v Karoonian CA 30-Oct-2012
Non-resident parents in each case appealed against suspended orders of imprisonment for non-payment of child support. They argued that the procedures used were indistinguishable from those held to be human rights non-compliant in Mubarak.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Human Rights
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249960
