판결 이유
Statutory reverse burdens of proof in criminal cases should be read down under s.3 HRA 1998 to impose only an evidential burden (duty to raise the issue) rather than a legal burden (duty to prove on the balance of probabilities), where imposing a legal burden would be disproportionate to the legislative aim.
사실관계
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).
판결 요약
The House of Lords held that s.28 should be read down under s.3 HRA 1998 so that the accused bears only an evidential burden (raising the issue) rather than a legal burden (proving on the balance of probabilities). A legal burden would be disproportionate.
주요 인용문
"The imposition of a legal burden on the accused is a disproportionate response to the problem which the reverse burden is designed to address."
— Lord Steyn
후속 처리
Important authority on reading down reverse burdens of proof under the HRA 1998. Applied in numerous subsequent cases on statutory presumptions.