R v Edwards

Facts

Edwards was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor without a justices' licence, contrary to section 160(1) of the Licensing Act 1964. The prosecution called no evidence that he did not hold a licence. He appealed on that ground.

Issue

Must the prosecution prove the absence of a licence, or must the accused prove that he had one?

Held

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Lawton LJ held that, on the construction of the statute, the burden of proving the licence was on the accused. The prosecution must still prove the rest of the offence.

Principle

Where a statute prohibits an act except in the case of persons who hold a licence or a qualification, the accused may have to prove that he holds it.

Why it matters

Hunt accepts that Edwards was correctly decided, and then limits how readily the same reading is applied to a serious offence.

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.