The defendant said that section 40 of the 1974 Act was not compatible with the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) of the Convention, unless the section was read down to impose only an evidential burden on the defendant.
Held: The Act was regulatory and intended to protect health and safety of workers and other. In choosing to operate in a regulated sphere of activity, the defendant had accepted those controls and before any onus fell on him, under section 40, to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to do more, the prosecution had to prove that the defendant owed the relevant duty and the relevant safety standard had been breached. The facts relied on in support of the defence of reason practicability would be within the knowledge of the defendant, but, if there was merely an evidential burden on the defendant, the prosecution might face considerable difficulties, particularly in complicated, and potentially the most serious cases; that the consequences to the defendant of conviction did not involve the moral obloquy of a truly criminal offence and he would not face imprisonment. For those reasons, the imposition of a legal burden of proof in section 40 of the Act was justified, necessary and proportionate and was not incompatible with Article 6(2) of the Convention.
Citations:
[2003] ICR 586 (CA)
Statutes:
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 40, European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Transco Plc v Her Majesty’s Advocates HCJ 16-Sep-2004
A dwellinghouse had exploded, killing the occupants. The defendant was to be tried for alleged breaches of the 1974 Act in the gas supoplies to the house. The appellant complained that a jury trial would be an infringement of its rights, since a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Health and Safety, Human Rights
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.214189