C.W v The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Approved) [2023] IESC 22 (28 August 2023)

C.W v The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Approved) [2023] IESC 22 (28 August 2023)

The Supreme Court held that the reversal of the burden of proof onto the accused to establish a reasonable mistake as to the age of the complainant under s 3 of the Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 (as amended) is constitutionally permissible. The standard of proof required of the accused is the balance of probabilities, as expressly provided by statute. This reversed burden is justified by the nature of the offence, the legislative intention to protect minors, and the fact that the relevant knowledge is peculiarly within the accused's domain. The arrangement does not violate the presumption of innocence or the requirement for a fair trial under Article 38.1 of the...

Citation
[2023] IESC 22
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: CW; Defendants/appellants: The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; statutory reversed burden upheld as constitutional.
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Reversed Burden, Sexual Offences, Standard of Proof, Presumption of Innocence, Mistake of Fact, Mens Rea, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Burden of Proof Reversed Burden Sexual Offences Standard of Proof Presumption of Innocence Mistake of Fact +2 more

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 46 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CW

Plaintiff/respondent

The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Supreme Court Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reversal of the burden of proof onto the accused in certain criminal offences is constitutionally permissible
  2. 2 What standard of proof applies to the accused under a reversed burden in serious criminal offences, specifically under s 3 of the Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 as amended
  3. 3 Whether the statutory requirement that the accused prove a reasonable mistake as to age on the balance of probabilities is compatible with constitutional fair trial guarantees

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the reversal of the burden of proof onto the accused to establish a reasonable mistake as to the age of the complainant under s 3 of the Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 (as amended) is constitutionally permissible. The standard of proof required of the accused is the balance of probabilities, as expressly provided by statute. This reversed burden is justified by the nature of the offence, the legislative intention to protect minors, and the fact that the relevant knowledge is peculiarly within the accused's domain. The arrangement does not violate the presumption of innocence or the requirement for a fair trial under Article 38.1 of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; statutory reversed burden upheld as constitutional.

Orders

  • The reversed burden of proof under s 3 of the Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 (as amended) is valid and constitutionally compliant.
  • The standard of proof for the accused is the balance of probabilities as set by statute.