Matthews, R. v

Matthews, R. v

Section 139(4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 imposes a persuasive burden on the accused, but this is proportionate and justified in light of the legitimate aim of protecting the public from bladed articles in public places. The provision is not incompatible with Article 6(2) ECHR, and the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Mark Anthony Matthews
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Reverse Burden of Proof, Compatibility With European Convention on Human Rights, Presumption of Innocence, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Reverse Burden of Proof Compatibility With European Convention on Human Rights Presumption of Innocence Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Mark Anthony Matthews

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 139(4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 impose a persuasive or evidential burden?
  2. 2 Is section 139 incompatible with Article 6(2) ECHR?
  3. 3 Should section 139 be read down under section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 139(4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 imposes a persuasive burden on the accused, but this is proportionate and justified in light of the legitimate aim of protecting the public from bladed articles in public places. The provision is not incompatible with Article 6(2) ECHR, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed