Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Regina -v- Daniel; CACD 22 Mar 2002

Regina -v- Daniel; CACD 22 Mar 2002

Postby dls » Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:54 am

References: Times 08-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 959, [2003] 1 Cr App R 99
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Auld, Mr Justice Newman and Mr Justice Roderick Evans
The defendant appealed a conviction for hiding assets from her receiver following her bankruptcy. He said that recent case law suggested that the burden of establishing the defence under section 352 was evidential only.
Held: The conviction predated the Human Rights Act, and was correct at the time. The Carass ruling applied also to the instant section, but since the issue related to interpretation of a statute, and new interpretations of statutes were not retrospective.
Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 352, Human Rights Act 1998 3(1)
This case cites:
    - Distinguished - Regina -v- Clive Louden Carass CACD (Times 21-Jan-02, Bailii, Gazette 27-Feb-02, [2001] EWCA Crim 2845, [2002] 1 WLR 1214, [2002] 2 Cr App R 4)
    When a defendant was accused of an offence under the section, and wished to raise a defence under sub-section 4, the duty of proof placed on him by the sub-section amounted to a duty to bring sufficient evidence to raise the defence, and the section . .
    - Applied - Regina -v- Lambert HL (Times 06-Jul-01, Bailii, House of Lords, Gazette 31-Aug-01, [2001] 3 WLR 206, [2001] UKHL 37, [2002] 2 AC 545, [2002] 1 All ER 2, [2001] HRLR 55, [2001] 2 Cr App R 28, [2001] UKHRR 1074, [2001] 3 All ER 577)
    The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
    - Cited - Jayasena -v- The Queen PC ([1970] AC 618)
    'Their Lordships do not understand what is meant by the phrase 'evidential burden of proof'. They understand, of course, that in trial by jury a party may be required to adduce some evidence in support of his case, whether on the general issue or on . .
    - Cited - Ong Ah Chuan -v- The Public Prosecutor PC ([1981] AC 648, [1980] 3 WLR 855, [1981] Crim LR 245)
    (Singapore) It was asked whether the mandatory death sentence for trafficking in more than 15 grammes of heroin was unconstitutional. The appellant submitted that the mandatory nature of the sentence rendered it arbitrary, since it debarred the . .

This case is cited by: 13-Aug-15
Insolvency, Human Rights, Crime
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11868
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Return to Insolvency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest