Gatland v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
1968 · 2 QB 279
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- A hopper was left on a highway. A lorry collided with it. The charge, under the Highways Act 1959, was depositing something on the highway without lawful authority or excuse, so as to endanger a user. The justices were asked who had to prove the excuse.
- Issue
- Does the prosecution have to negative lawful authority or excuse, or does the prove it?
- Held
- The Divisional Court, Lord Parker CJ, held that the prosecution must prove the deposit and the danger. Lawful authority or excuse is for the defendant, on the , under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952.
- Principle
- Where a statute prohibits an act 'without lawful authority or excuse', the excuse is a matter the accused proves. Ease of proof is the reason.
- Why it matters
- Machin v Ash, on a driver and an insurance certificate, is the companion. John v Humphreys is the licence case.
Words and Latin in this note
- Balance of probabilities
- The standard of proof in civil cases, and the standard when an accused bears a legal burden: the court asks whether something is more likely than not to have happened. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.