NW and Others, Regina v: CACD 23 Jan 2008

The prosecutor appealed from a terminal ruling, acceding to a submission of no case to answer advanced on behalf of all four defendants.
Proof to the criminal standard can be discharged by circumstantial evidence and then by inference: ‘No doubt, if such an inference is prima facie there to be drawn, an evidential burden is cast on the defendant to show that after all the inference is wrong: there is another explanation for the defendant’s dealing with the property. But it is surely commonplace that the presence of such an evidential burden does not reposition the legal burden of proof.’
Laws LJ, David Clarke, Lloyd Jones JJ
[2008] EWCA Crim 2, [2009] 1 WLR 965, [2008] Lloyds Rep FC 163, [2008] 3 All ER 533
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWiese v The UK Border Agency Admn 29-Jun-2012
The claimant challenged a decision to seize a sustantial sum of cash being carried by him whilst passing through London City Airport. In the magistrates court, the claimant had objected to the reliance on parts of a customs officer’s statement which . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 May 2021; Ref: scu.263810