R v Lambert

Ratio Decidendi

Facts

Lambert was found in possession of a bag containing 2 kg of cocaine. Under s.28 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, he bore the burden of proving he did not know the bag contained drugs. He argued this reversed the burden of proof, violating Article 6(2) ECHR (presumption of innocence).

Judgment Summary

The House of Lords held, by a majority, that s.28 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 — which on its face required a defendant to prove that they neither believed nor suspected nor had reason to suspect that they were in possession of a controlled drug — could and should be read down under s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to impose only an evidential burden on the accused rather than a legal (persuasive) one. Placing a legal burden on the defendant would risk convicting a person about whose guilt the jury retained a reasonable doubt and was a disproportionate interference with the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) ECHR; an evidential burden — requiring the accused only to raise the issue, leaving the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt — met the statute's aim proportionately. On a separate issue, a majority also held that the defendant could not rely on the Human Rights Act to challenge his own conviction, which had become final before the Act came into force, so his individual appeal failed on that ground. The case remains a leading authority on reverse burdens of proof and the strong interpretive obligation in s.3 HRA.

Key Quotes

Subsequent Treatment