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 order to establish guilt either of a contravention of Section 4(3)(b) or of a contravention of Section 5(3). ‘
Judges:
Lord Justice General
Citations:
[1998] ScotHC 12, [1998] ScotHC 13
Links:
Statutes:
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 28 32(2) 32(3)
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Ashton-Rickhardt CACD 1977
. .
Cited – McKenzie v Skeen HCJ 1983
. .
Cited – Regina v Mackenzie HCJ 1989
. .
Cited – Regina v McNamara CACD 1988
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Shivpuri HL 15-May-1986
The defendant had been accused of attempting to import controlled drugs, but the substances actually found were not in fact a controlled drug, though he had believed and intended them to be. He appealed saying that he should not be conviced of an . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.171025
