The defendant appealed his conviction for carrying a bladed article in public, on the basis that the Act transferred to him the onus of establishing the statutory defence.
Held: There were four steps to be applied in assessing the case. Was the burden an evidential or persuasive? If persuasive, did it impinge of the defendant’s rights? If it did, were the provisions compatible? If incompatible could they be read down to require only an evidential burden? Here there was a persuasive burden which did impinge on the defendant’s rights, but the good reason for that meant that the provision was not incompatible.
Lord Justice Mantell Mr Justice Field His Honour Judge Paget Qc
[2003] EWCA Crim 813, Times 28-Apr-2003, Gazette 15-May-2003, [2004] QB 690, [2003] 3 WLR 693
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 139, European Convention on Human Rights 6.2
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.180327 br>