In order to establish possession of a controlled drug the Crown merely had to prove that the appellant had the bag in his possession and that the bag in fact contained a controlled drug, in this case cocaine. Thereafter the burden was cast upon the appellant to bring himself within section 28 and prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he did not know that the bag contained a controlled drug. Section 28(3) would be the basis upon which the appellant, if believed by the jury, could be acquitted in a case where he said that he thought that a cardboard box, which was on his motorcycle, contained pornographic or pirate videos rather than the 20 Kilos of cannabis resin which it in fact contained.
Judges:
Lord Lane C.J
Citations:
(1988) 87 Cr App R 246
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
Cited – Salmon and Moore v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 13-Nov-1998
The court considered the burden of proof placed on the prosecution under s28 of the 1971 Act.
Held: ‘Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 28 are both designed to come into play at a stage when the Crown have proved all that they need to prove in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.194982