The defendant appealed against his conviction for breach of a non-molestation order. He said that the prosecutor should have had the burden of proving that he had no lawful excuse for the acts complained of. He was said to have gone to the complainant’s offices to make telephone calls in breach of the order. He replied that he had had a lawful excuse in that the complainant, his former partner, was an alcoholic, was drunk, and that he had fears for his chidren.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Act was phrased similarly to the anti-social behaviour acts, and a burden was placed on the prosecutor to establish that the act complained of was done without lawful excuse.
Judges:
Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Roderick Evans and Mr Justice Coulson
Citations:
Times 28-Apr-2010
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Charles, Regina v CACD 28-Jul-2009
The court was asked whether the legal burden of proving whether a defendant acted without reasonable excuse in breach of an Anti-social Behaviour Order rests upon the Crown or the defence.
Held: It was for the prosecution to establish that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.408659