When a defendant was accused of an offence under the section, and wished to raise a defence under sub-section 4, the duty of proof placed on him by the sub-section amounted to a duty to bring sufficient evidence to raise the defence, and the section did not transfer the burden from the prosecution.
Held: To justify a transfer of the burden of proof, it had to be shown that this was required, and a persuasive burden rather than an evidential burden was not justified. There was no sufficient threat to society which required a higher burden. The words should be read to require the defendant to adduce sufficient evidence.
Lord Justice Waller, Mr Justice Rougier and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Times 21-Jan-2002, Gazette 27-Feb-2002,  EWCA Crim 2845,  1 WLR 1214,  2 Cr App R 4
Insolvency Act 1986 206 (1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
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 . .
Distinguished – Regina v Daniel CACD 22-Mar-2002
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 – Norwood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Jul-2003
The appellant a BNP member had displayed a large poster in his bedroom window saying ‘Islam out of Britain’. He was convicted of an aggravated attempt to cause alarm or distress. The offence was established on proof of several matters, unless the . .
Wrongly Decided – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
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: . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.167393