R v Hunt

Facts

Hunt was found in possession of a powder containing morphine and was charged under section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Regulations provided that the section did not apply to a preparation containing not more than 0.2 per cent of morphine. The prosecution did not prove the proportion. The judge ruled there was a case to answer. Hunt pleaded guilty. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

Issue

Who must prove that the powder was stronger than the exempted preparation?

Held

The House of Lords allowed the appeal. The prosecution had to prove that the powder fell outside the exemption. Lord Griffiths said Edwards is right, but a court is very slow to infer that Parliament required an accused to prove his innocence, particularly on a serious charge. Ambiguity is resolved in favour of the accused.

Principle

An implied statutory burden depends on the construction of the particular Act, including practicality and the seriousness of the offence. It is not automatic.

Why it matters

It is the control on section 101 of the Magistrates' Courts Act and on Edwards. The judge in the argument is Viscount Sankey.

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