Makuwa, R. v

Makuwa, R. v

The trial judge misdirected the jury by placing the burden of proving refugee status on the defendant and by requiring proof on the balance of probabilities, rather than requiring the prosecution to disprove refugee status once the issue was raised. The judge also failed to properly explain the meaning of 'well-founded fear.' These misdirections rendered the conviction unsafe.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Liliane Makuwa
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Forgery, Use of False Instruments, Facilitating Illegal Entry, Statutory Defence for Refugees, Burden of Proof, Refugee Status, Article 31 Refugee Convention, Section 31 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
Criminal Law Immigration Law Human Rights Forgery Use of False Instruments Facilitating Illegal Entry Statutory Defence for Refugees Burden of Proof +3 more

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Liliane Makuwa

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury on the burden and standard of proof for the statutory defence under section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether the defendant must prove refugee status and other elements of the statutory defence, and to what standard
  3. 3 Whether the judge properly explained the meaning of 'well-founded fear' and other Convention terms

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge misdirected the jury by placing the burden of proving refugee status on the defendant and by requiring proof on the balance of probabilities, rather than requiring the prosecution to disprove refugee status once the issue was raised. The judge also failed to properly explain the meaning of 'well-founded fear.' These misdirections rendered the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed