Webster v R

Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial and Sentencing

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether section 2 Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, as applied to section 1(2) Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, violates the presumption of innocence under Article 6.2 ECHR by imposing a reverse burden of proof on the accused.
2. 2 Whether the imposition of a legal burden on the defendant to disprove corruption is necessary, reasonable, and proportionate.
3. 3 Whether section 3 Human Rights Act 1998 permits the court to read down section 2 to impose only an evidential burden.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 2 Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, as applied to section 1(2) Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, unjustifiably interferes with the presumption of innocence under Article 6.2 ECHR. The reverse burden is no longer necessary, reasonable, or proportionate. Section 3 Human Rights Act 1998 permits the court to read down section 2 to impose only an evidential burden on the defendant. The conviction is unsafe as the jury may have convicted solely because the appellant failed to discharge the legal burden, not because they were sure of guilt.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

• Verdict of guilty on count 4 quashed; conviction set aside.
• Any consequential applications to be made in writing within 14 days.