Matthews, R. v [2003] EWCA Crim 813 (25 March 2003)

Matthews, R. v [2003] EWCA Crim 813 (25 March 2003)

Section 139(4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 imposes a persuasive burden on the accused, but this is justified and proportionate in light of the legitimate aim of protecting the public from bladed articles in public places. The provision is compatible with Article 6(2) ECHR, as the burden relates to facts within the accused's knowledge, the penalty is not unduly severe, and Parliament's balance between public interest and individual rights is respected.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Crim 813
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Mark Anthony Matthews
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction in Crown Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Reverse Burden of Proof, Possession of Bladed Article, Article 6 ECHR, Presumption of Innocence, Compatibility of UK Statutes With ECHR
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Reverse Burden of Proof Possession of Bladed Article Article 6 ECHR Presumption of Innocence Compatibility of UK Statutes With ECHR

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Mark Anthony Matthews

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction in Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does s.139(4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 impose a persuasive or evidential burden?
  2. 2 Is the reverse burden provision compatible with Article 6(2) ECHR?
  3. 3 Is the imposition of a persuasive burden justified and proportionate under the Convention?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 139(4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 imposes a persuasive burden on the accused, but this is justified and proportionate in light of the legitimate aim of protecting the public from bladed articles in public places. The provision is compatible with Article 6(2) ECHR, as the burden relates to facts within the accused's knowledge, the penalty is not unduly severe, and Parliament's balance between public interest and individual rights is respected.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • No incompatibility declaration made under the Human Rights Act 1998