Diplock L said: ‘Corruption in the public service is a grave social event which is difficult to detect, for those who take part in it will be at pains to cover their tracks.’ and ‘In criminal proceedings, by an exception to the general rule founded upon considerations of public policy. If the consequence of a finding that a particular fact is proved will be the conviction of the defendant the degree of probability must be so high as to exclude any reasonable doubt that that fact exists. Generally speaking, no onus lies upon a defendant in criminal proceedings to prove or disprove any fact: it is sufficient for his acquittal if any of the facts which, if they existed, would constitute the offence with which he is charged, are ‘not proved.’ But exceptionally, as in the present case, an enactment creating an offence expressly provides that if other facts are proved, a particular fact, the existence of which is a necessary factual ingredient of the offence, shall be presumed or deemed to exist.’ . . ‘unless the contrary is proved.’ In such a case the consequence of finding that that particular fact is ‘disproved’ will be an acquittal, whereas the absence of such a finding will have the consequence of a conviction.’
Judges:
Diplock L
Citations:
[1970] AC 913, [1970] 2 WLR 226
Cited by:
Cited – Webster v Regina CACD 1-Dec-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 1889 Act for making a corrupt gift to a local government officer. He said that the 1916 Act placed an unfair burden on him to prove that the gift was not corruptly given.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Commonwealth
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.426855