R v Lambert
A reverse burden requiring a defendant charged with drug possession to prove that he did not know that a bag contained drugs was read down under the Human Rights Act to impose only an evidential burden.
Facts
Mr Lambert was found carrying a bag containing cocaine. He was charged with possession with intent to supply, and relied on section 28 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which provides a defence if the defendant proves that he neither knew nor suspected that he was in possession of a controlled drug. The judge directed the jury that the burden was on him to prove this on the balance of probabilities, and he was convicted. He argued that this breached the presumption of innocence in article 6(2) of the European Convention.
Legal principle
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding that the Human Rights Act 1998 did not apply retrospectively to a trial before it came into force. However, the majority said that, if the Act had applied, section 28 should be read down under section 3 of the Act so as to impose only an evidential burden on the defendant, because placing a legal burden on him to disprove knowledge, which was central to the offence, was a disproportionate interference with the presumption of innocence. Lord Steyn said that the more serious the punishment, the more compelling must be the justification for a reverse burden.
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 Hunt [1987] AC 352
- R v Johnstone [2003] UKHL 28, [2003] 1 WLR 1736
- 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.
