John v Humphreys
1955 · 1 WLR 325
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- A driver was charged with driving a motor vehicle otherwise than in accordance with a licence. The prosecution proved that he was driving. It did not prove that he had no licence. He said that omission was fatal.
- Issue
- Must the prosecution prove the absence of a licence, or must the driver prove that he held one?
- Held
- The driver must prove it. The Divisional Court held that a licence is a fact peculiarly within his knowledge, and that the statute leaves that exception to him.
- Principle
- An implied statutory exception, where the accused can produce the document and the prosecution cannot easily prove a negative, puts a on the accused, on the .
- Why it matters
- Edwards is the same idea for a liquor licence. Hunt is the limit, where the court will not imply that burden on a serious charge.
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.
- Legal burden
- The obligation to prove a fact to the required standard, or lose on that issue. In crime it is on the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, except for insanity and a statutory exception, which the accused proves on the balance of probabilities. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.