NEW: Reverse burdens of proof.

The truth behind penalty points and fixed penalty notices.

In criminal law it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case against you beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the ‘burden of proof’ is on the State.

It is not the duty of the defendant to prove their innocence; the State must prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

"If a butcher leaves his shop to collect a delivery of meat

from a truck parked across the street,

is he breaking the law if he

carries a knife with him while he collects the meat?"

Exceptions where a ‘reverse burden of proof’ applies, (i.e. where you have to prove something) do exist.

For instance, if you are found with a warehouse full of cannabis plants it is no defence to say that you had the drugs ‘for your own use’ and not for drug dealing.

That’s because the law provides that where you are found in possession of a quantity of drugs that you can’t immediately consume, and the court thinks it’s reasonable to assume that the drugs were not intended for your ‘immediate personal use’, it will be presumed, ‘until the court is satisfied to the contrary’, that you had the drugs for the purposes of sale and supply, regardless of what you say.

That is an example of a reverse burden of proof.

The onus is on you -not the State- to prove something. If you don’t do it, you stand convicted.

Just the same principle applies to possession of offensive weapons.

The Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act governs this. If you are found with a knife in a public place it may be illegal, depending on the circumstances.

For instance if a butcher leaves his shop to collect a delivery of meat from a truck parked across the street, is he breaking the law if he carries a knife with him while he collects the meat?

No, because he is carrying the knife in the course of work and in that circumstance it would be seen as a valid defence.

"But you must provide evidence, as otherwise you will be convicted.

And the judge must be satisfied with your sworn evidence.

This is easier said than done"

But if you are found with a knife that is something much different.

In this instance the law states that if you are found in public with a knife the onus of proving that you had it for some lawful purpose rests with you.

In other words, the State merely have to prove that you had the knife; the onus of proving that you had it for a lawful purpose rests with you.

That is a reverse burden of proof; you are required to prove something in order to be acquitted.

Same applies to fixed penalty notices for speeding.

To escape liability in court, you must prove something, in this case, that you never received the fixed penalty notice in the post.

The law presumes you received the fixed notice in the post. If you didn’t receive the notice you must give evidence to this effect in court and if the judge is satisfied that you didn’t receive it then you will be acquitted.

But you must provide evidence, as otherwise you will be convicted.

And the judge must be satisfied with your sworn evidence.

This is easier said than done.

In all the examples cited above the State are absolved of carrying the entire burden of proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

You, the defendant, have to do some ‘heavy lifting’ too.