AH Ltd & Anor, R. v

AH Ltd & Anor, R. v

The House of Lords in R v Chargot expressly approved R v Davies, which held that section 40 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 imposes a legal burden on the accused to prove reasonable practicability. This reverse burden is justified, necessary, and proportionate, and is not rendered disproportionate by the possibility of imprisonment. The court is bound by this authority and refuses permission to appeal.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: AH Ltd; Appellant: Mr SJ
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Preparatory Hearing Ruling
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Reverse Burden, Reasonable Practicability, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Article 6 ECHR, Presumption of Innocence
Criminal Law Health and Safety Law Burden of Proof Reverse Burden Reasonable Practicability Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Article 6 ECHR Presumption of Innocence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

AH Ltd

Appellant

Mr SJ

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Preparatory Hearing Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 40 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 impose a legal or evidential burden on the accused to prove reasonable practicability?
  2. 2 Is the reverse burden under section 40 compatible with the presumption of innocence under Article 6(2) ECHR, especially where imprisonment is possible?

Ratio Decidendi

The House of Lords in R v Chargot expressly approved R v Davies, which held that section 40 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 imposes a legal burden on the accused to prove reasonable practicability. This reverse burden is justified, necessary, and proportionate, and is not rendered disproportionate by the possibility of imprisonment. The court is bound by this authority and refuses permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused