Lynch v DPP [2001] EWHC Admin 882 (8th November, 2001)

Lynch v DPP [2001] EWHC Admin 882 (8th November, 2001)

Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 does not conflict with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The reverse onus is justified, proportionate, and within reasonable limits, given the public interest in deterring the carrying of knives and the fact that the defendant is proving something within his own knowledge.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Admin 882
Parties
Appellant: Stuart Lynch; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From West London Youth Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Reverse Burden of Proof, Possession of Offensive Weapons, Presumption of Innocence, Compatibility With European Convention on Human Rights, Interpretation of Statutory Defences
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Reverse Burden of Proof Possession of Offensive Weapons Presumption of Innocence Compatibility With European Convention on Human Rights Interpretation of Statutory Defences

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

Parties

Stuart Lynch

Appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From West London Youth Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 139(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 impose a probative burden on the defendant incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
  2. 2 Should section 139 be read under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to impose only an evidential burden?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 does not conflict with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The reverse onus is justified, proportionate, and within reasonable limits, given the public interest in deterring the carrying of knives and the fact that the defendant is proving something within his own knowledge.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Certification of point of law granted
  • Permission to appeal to House of Lords refused