Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
--Henry De
Bracton.
Bracton suggested that it is presumed that every man is good
until the contrary is proved. This shows that the principles on
Presumption of Innocence (POI) has existed in thirteenthcenturies. In 1935, Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP held
Throughout the web of English Criminal Rule one golden thread
is always to be seen that is it the duty of the Prosecution to
prove the Prisoners guilty This refers to the rule that the
prosecution bears the legal burden to prove the elements of the
offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused bears only an
evidential burden to raise defences. Upon discharging of his
evidential burden, it is for the prosecution to disprove it beyond
reasonable doubt, otherwise the accused will be acquitted.
However, this rule is subjected to the defence of insanity and
statutory exceptions. In these two circumstances, the LB will
shifted onto the accused to prove his defence on the balance of
probabilities. Statutory exceptions refer to Parliamentary
Supremacy, where a statute expressly or impliedly shifts the LB
to the accused. Before 1st October 2000, the statutory reversals
will occur automatically. Since Human Rights Act 1998 came
into force, any reverse onus provision is subjected to challenge
on its incompatibility with Art 6(2) ECHR.
The first case concerning reverse onus in the UK is Lambert.
Lambert was charged with s5(3) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
possession with intent to supply. He had relied on a defence in
s28, which expressly reverse the LB to him to prove that he had
no knowledge of the substance. Lambert was convicted. He
appealed, on the ground that s28 is incompatible with Art 6(2).
The HOL dismissed the appeal on the basis of ex post facto law.
However, their obiter suggested that s28 was incompatible with
Art 6(2) and therefore should be read down as to impose only
an EB to the accused. Lord Steyn referred to Ex Parte Kabeline
and came out with a test of proportionality, which requires the