2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/25934
Title:
Sheldrake Regulatory Offences and Reverse Legal Burdens of Proof
Authors:
Glover, Richard M.
Abstract:
This article examines the reverse legal burden of proof upheld by the House of Lords in Sheldrake v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] UKHL 43 in relation to the offence ‘being drunk in charge’ of a motor vehicle, contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.5(1)(b), and the defence under s5(2). It considers two main arguments that arose from Sheldrake. First, that the section 5(2) defence that there was no likelihood of the defendant driving while over the limit forms part of the gravamen of the section 5(1)(b) offence and that, accordingly, a reverse legal burden amounts to a breach of the presumption of innocence. It is argued that this analysis, approved by the Divisional Court but largely overlooked by the House of Lords, is per Lord Bingham “too simple and only partially correct”. Secondly, it will be considered whether some offences, such as ‘being drunk in charge’, may be classified as regulatory on the basis that the offence was concerned with a lawful activity that the defendant voluntarily engaged in that presented a serious risk or danger to public health and safety. It is argued that in this context a reverse legal burden may normally be presumed.
Citation:
Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, [2006](4)
Publisher:
Web Journal of Current Legal Issues
Journal:
Web Journal of Current Legal Issues
Issue Date:
2006
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/25934
Additional Links:
http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2006/issue4/glover4.html
Type:
Article
Language:
en
Appears in Collections:
Legal Studies Research Group ; Legal Studies Research Group

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorGlover, Richard M.-
dc.date.accessioned2008-05-14T10:10:44Z-
dc.date.available2008-05-14T10:10:44Z-
dc.date.issued2006-
dc.identifier.citationWeb Journal of Current Legal Issues, [2006](4)en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/25934-
dc.description.abstractThis article examines the reverse legal burden of proof upheld by the House of Lords in Sheldrake v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] UKHL 43 in relation to the offence ‘being drunk in charge’ of a motor vehicle, contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.5(1)(b), and the defence under s5(2). It considers two main arguments that arose from Sheldrake. First, that the section 5(2) defence that there was no likelihood of the defendant driving while over the limit forms part of the gravamen of the section 5(1)(b) offence and that, accordingly, a reverse legal burden amounts to a breach of the presumption of innocence. It is argued that this analysis, approved by the Divisional Court but largely overlooked by the House of Lords, is per Lord Bingham “too simple and only partially correct”. Secondly, it will be considered whether some offences, such as ‘being drunk in charge’, may be classified as regulatory on the basis that the offence was concerned with a lawful activity that the defendant voluntarily engaged in that presented a serious risk or danger to public health and safety. It is argued that in this context a reverse legal burden may normally be presumed.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWeb Journal of Current Legal Issuesen
dc.relation.urlhttp://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2006/issue4/glover4.htmlen
dc.subjectBurden of proofen
dc.subjectRegulatory offencesen
dc.subjectSheldrakeen
dc.subjectReverse burdenen
dc.subjectCriminal lawen
dc.subjectPresumption of innocenceen
dc.titleSheldrake Regulatory Offences and Reverse Legal Burdens of Proofen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalWeb Journal of Current Legal Issuesen
All Items in WIRE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.