The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to statutory exceptions. To place a legal (persuasive) burden of proof on the defendant is possible under statute, but is exceptional, and requires clear words. Here, parliament had used the word ‘prove’ rather than ‘show’ in describing the burden on the defendant to establish a defence. The defence did not allege dishonesty. Having regard not only to the interests of the accused and the public, the imposition of legal burden on the accused, in the section is necessary, justified and proportionate. There is a heavy burden on those justifying a reverse legal burden of proof, but that burden was discharged here.
Rose LJ, Hughes, Davis JJ
Times 02-Dec-2002, Gazette 06-Feb-2003, [2002] EWCA Crim 2558, [2003] UKHRR 328, [2003] 1 Cr App R 35
Bailii
Trade Marks Act 1994 92(5) 94, European Convention on Human Rights 6.2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering) CACD 20-Nov-2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to . .
Doubted – Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering) CACD 20-Nov-2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to . .
Cited by:
Cited – Barnfather v London Borough of Islington Education Authority, Secretary of State for Education and Skills QBD 7-Mar-2003
The appellant was convicted of the crime of being a parent whose child had failed to attend school regularly. She challenged saying that the offence required no guilty act on her part, but was one of strict liability, and contrary to her human . .
Cited – Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering) CACD 20-Nov-2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to . .
Doubted – Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering) CACD 20-Nov-2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to . .
Cited – Regina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
Cited – Essex Trading Standards v Singh Admn 3-Mar-2009
The defendant had been accused of selling counterfeit trainer shoes. The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of the prosecution on the basis that the defenant had not known that they were counterfeit.
Held: The onus of proof lay on the . .
Cited – Shepherd v The Information Commissioner CACD 18-Jan-2019
The defendant had been part of an organisation subject to an investigation of child sex abuse. He was cleared of involvement, but had disseminated the confidential reports containing sensitive personal data to support his contention that the process . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Crime, Human Rights
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.178305
