The purpose of this essay is to critically examine the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the operation of the burden of proof and on the area of law concerned with the exclusion of evidence obtained by illegal or improper means.
From the text: Presumption of innocence; Human Rights Act; Evidential Burden; Legal Burden.
Table of Contents
1. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
2. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
3. EVIDENTIAL BURDEN
4. LEGAL BURDEN
5. EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE
6. EUROPEAN CONVENTION
7. ENTRAPMENT
8. SURVEILLANCE
9. CONCLUSIONS
Research Objectives and Themes
This essay aims to critically analyze the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the functioning of the burden of proof within the legal system of England and Wales, specifically examining how it influences the exclusion of evidence obtained through improper or illegal methods.
- The evolution of the presumption of innocence in criminal law.
- The distinction and judicial application of legal versus evidential burdens.
- The influence of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on domestic statutes.
- Judicial discretion regarding the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence.
- Legal challenges related to entrapment and surveillance techniques.
Excerpt from the Book
LEGAL BURDEN
However, ‘not all apparently persuasive burdens have to be “read down” to be evidential burdens.’ The burden might be either evidential or legal as long as it satisfies the test. In the case of L v DPP, the Court held that there were ‘good reasons’ for the Criminal Justice Act 1981 to impose the legal burden of proof on the defendant thereby the Act achieved a fair balance between the interest of the community and the protection of the fundamental rights of the individual. Likewise, no infringement of Article 6(2) was found in regard to the intoxication-related offences under the Road Traffic Offenders Act and Road Traffic Act, use of trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, and others.
The role of the Court is to assess the intention of Parliament and all provisions reversing the burden of proof must be considered on a case-to-case basis. As a consequence, it must inevitably result in inconsistency of judicial verdicts. Furthermore, presumptions are permitted within ‘reasonable limits’, however, it is unclear ‘where the boundary of those limits is to be found.’ Therefore, the Law Commission proposed that the burden of proof lying on the defendant should be evidential in all cases. Alternatively, the guidance could be formulated by the Court as to when the reversed burden of proof contravenes the presumption of innocence.
Summary of Chapters
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE: Discusses the fundamental role of the presumption of innocence and how various statutory exceptions have historically undermined this principle.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: Analyzes the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 and its role in challenging statutory exceptions that are incompatible with Article 6(2) of the ECHR.
EVIDENTIAL BURDEN: Examines how the House of Lords applies proportionality tests to "read down" legal burdens to merely evidential ones.
LEGAL BURDEN: Explores the Court's case-by-case assessment of when a legal burden is justified to balance individual rights with public interest.
EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE: Details the traditional common law stance that relevant evidence is admissible regardless of how it was obtained, barring specific exceptions.
EUROPEAN CONVENTION: Evaluates how the Convention influences judicial discretion and the necessity of ensuring the overall fairness of proceedings.
ENTRAPMENT: Investigates the distinction between acceptable police conduct and state-created crime in light of Strasbourg jurisprudence.
SURVEILLANCE: Reviews the application of ECHR standards to evidence obtained via illegal surveillance and the consistency of the British judiciary.
CONCLUSIONS: Summarizes that while the HRA significantly influenced the burden of proof, its impact on the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence remains limited.
Keywords
Human Rights Act 1998, Presumption of Innocence, Burden of Proof, Legal Burden, Evidential Burden, ECHR, Article 6(2), Criminal Law, Exclusion of Evidence, Judicial Discretion, Proportionality, Entrapment, Surveillance, Fair Trial, UK Law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental purpose of this work?
This work examines how the Human Rights Act 1998 has influenced the operation of the burden of proof and the rules regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained through illegal means in England and Wales.
Which key legal concepts are central to the analysis?
The core concepts include the presumption of innocence, the differentiation between legal and evidential burdens, the proportionality test, and judicial discretion in excluding evidence.
What is the primary research objective?
The objective is to determine the extent to which the Human Rights Act has shifted the balance between statutory powers and the protection of the right to a fair trial.
What scientific or legal methodology does the author employ?
The author employs a legal analytical approach, reviewing domestic legislation, leading case law, and jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights.
What aspects are covered in the main body of the text?
The main body explores the tension between parliamentary sovereignty and human rights, the judicial "reading down" of statutes, and the courts' stance on evidence obtained through entrapment and surveillance.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
The research is characterized by terms such as Human Rights Act 1998, Burden of Proof, Proportionality, Fair Trial, and the European Convention on Human Rights.
How does the HRA affect the "legal burden" of proof?
The HRA requires the court to assess whether a provision reversing the burden of proof is proportionate; if it is not, the court may "read down" the legal burden to a mere evidential burden.
Why does the author argue that the impact on evidence exclusion is limited?
The author concludes that despite the HRA, British courts generally maintain the common law stance that relevant evidence remains admissible even if improperly obtained, provided the overall fairness of the trial is not compromised.
- Quote paper
- Kacper Zajac (Author), 2013, The Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the Law of Evidence in the United Kingdom, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/353644
