M, R. v

M, R. v

The trial judge failed to adequately explain the distinction between evidential and legal burden of proof to the jury, resulting in a muddled direction that could not be understood, necessitating the quashing of the conviction.

Parties
Appellant: M; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
conviction quashed, retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Possession of Controlled Drugs, Intent to Supply, Duress, Misuse of Drugs
Criminal Law Burden of Proof Possession of Controlled Drugs Intent to Supply Duress Misuse of Drugs

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury on the evidential and legal burden of proof under section 28(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
  2. 2 whether the conviction should be quashed due to inadequate jury directions

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge failed to adequately explain the distinction between evidential and legal burden of proof to the jury, resulting in a muddled direction that could not be understood, necessitating the quashing of the conviction.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed, retrial ordered

Orders

  • quash conviction
  • order retrial on both counts of the indictment