Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGlover, Richard M.
dc.date.accessioned2008-05-14T10:49:06Z
dc.date.available2008-05-14T10:49:06Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.identifier.citationNew Law Journal, 157(1344): 1344-1345
dc.identifier.issn0306-6479
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/25953
dc.description.abstractDiscusses the extent to which criminal offences should be tried with a presumption of the burden of proof being on the defendant, referring to the views expressed by Lord Scarman and case law developments, including the House of Lords decision in R. v Lambert (Steven). Considers the intentions of Parliament for reverse burdens of proof to be imposed, such as under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 ss.5 and 28, and the effects which the introduction of human rights legislation has had. Reviews the Criminal Law Revision Committee report on the use of the reverse burden of evidential proof.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherReed Elsevier (UK) Ltd
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.new-law-journal.co.uk/
dc.subjectBurden of proof
dc.subjectCriminal evidence
dc.subjectLegislative intention
dc.subjectReverse burden
dc.subjectMisuse of Drugs Act 1971
dc.subjectHuman rights
dc.titlePause for Thought
dc.typeJournal article
dc.identifier.journalNew Law Journal
html.description.abstractDiscusses the extent to which criminal offences should be tried with a presumption of the burden of proof being on the defendant, referring to the views expressed by Lord Scarman and case law developments, including the House of Lords decision in R. v Lambert (Steven). Considers the intentions of Parliament for reverse burdens of proof to be imposed, such as under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 ss.5 and 28, and the effects which the introduction of human rights legislation has had. Reviews the Criminal Law Revision Committee report on the use of the reverse burden of evidential proof.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record