R v Edwards
Where a defendant relies on an exception, such as holding a licence, which the statute provides, the burden of proving that he falls within it is on him, as reflected in the rule now in section 101 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
Facts
Mr Edwards was charged with selling intoxicating liquor without holding a justices' licence. The prosecution did not prove that he did not hold a licence. He argued that the burden was on the prosecution to prove every element of the offence, including the absence of a licence.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Lawton LJ said that, over the centuries, the common law had evolved an exception to the fundamental rule that the prosecution must prove every element of the offence, which was limited to offences arising under enactments which prohibit the doing of an act save in specified circumstances or by persons of specified classes or with specified qualifications or with the licence or permission of specified authorities. In such cases, the burden of proving that he falls within the exception is on the defendant. Whether a holder of a licence would be easily able to prove it was a relevant consideration.
Related cases on burden and standard of proof
- Re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11
- Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563
- Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
- R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
- R v Hunt [1987] AC 352
- R v Johnstone [2003] UKHL 28, [2003] 1 WLR 1736
- R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37, [2002] 2 AC 545
- Salabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR 379
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
