R v Hunt
A statute may place the legal burden of proof on the defendant expressly or by necessary implication, and the court must construe the provision in the light of the mischief and the ease of proof.
Facts
Mr Hunt was charged with possession of a controlled drug, morphine, which was found in a powder at his home. Under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, a preparation containing not more than 0.2 percent of morphine was exempt. The prosecution did not prove the percentage of morphine in the powder. The question was whether the burden was on the prosecution to prove that the powder did not fall within the exemption, or on the defendant to prove that it did.
Legal principle
The House of Lords quashed the conviction, holding that the burden was on the prosecution. Lord Griffiths said that Woolmington v DPP did not prevent Parliament from placing a burden of proof on the defendant, and that this could be done by necessary implication as well as expressly. In deciding whether Parliament had intended to place the burden on the defendant, the court should consider the mischief at which the provision was aimed, practical considerations, and the ease or difficulty that the respective parties would encounter in discharging the burden. Here, the offence was serious and the prosecution could easily prove the composition of the powder, so the burden remained on the prosecution.
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 Edwards [1975] QB 27
- R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
- 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.
