Regina v G: CACD 12 Apr 2006

The defendant pleaded guilty to the rape of a twelve year old girl on the agreed basis that he had believed her to be 15, but had been advised that given her age, his belief was immaterial. He now appealed saying that the presumption infringed his human rights.
Held: The question was whether the section conflicted with the presumption of innocence. If it did it could be written down to become compliant. It was necessary to retain the distinction between innocence of criminal conduct and innocence of blameworthy conduct.The section did not infinge the defendant’s human rights, and the section did not require to be read down.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Andrew Smith J, Wilkie J
[2006] EWCA Crim 821, [2006] 1 WLR 2052, [2007] 1 Lloyds Rep IR 186, [2006] All ER (D) 185, [2006] 1 Lloyds Rep 500, [2006] Crim LR 930
Sexual Offences Act 2003 5, European Convention on Human Rights 6.2
England and Wales
CitedSheldrake 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: . .
CitedSalabiaku v France ECHR 7-Oct-1988
A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.242609