Daniel, R. v [2002] EWCA Crim 959 (22nd March, 2002)

Daniel, R. v [2002] EWCA Crim 959 (22nd March, 2002)

Section 352 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as interpreted under domestic law prior to the Human Rights Act 1998, imposes a persuasive (legal) burden on the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities that he had no intent to defraud or conceal the state of his affairs. The trial judge's direction to the jury was correct, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Crim 959
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Anthony Lala Daniel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Reverse Burden of Proof, Presumption of Innocence, Bankruptcy Offences, Interpretation of Statutory Defences, Compatibility With ECHR Article 6(2)
Criminal Law Insolvency Law Human Rights Law Reverse Burden of Proof Presumption of Innocence Bankruptcy Offences Interpretation of Statutory Defences Compatibility With ECHR Article 6(2)

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Anthony Lala Daniel

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 352 of the Insolvency Act 1986 imposes a legal or evidential burden of proof on a defendant
  2. 2 Whether imposing a legal burden is compatible with Article 6(2) ECHR (presumption of innocence)
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's direction on the burden of proof was correct in law

Ratio Decidendi

Section 352 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as interpreted under domestic law prior to the Human Rights Act 1998, imposes a persuasive (legal) burden on the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities that he had no intent to defraud or conceal the state of his affairs. The trial judge's direction to the jury was correct, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed