Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions

The House of Lords, in a consolidated appeal and reference, considered the compatibility of reverse burdens of proof in two criminal statutes with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The first concerned Section 5(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which required a defendant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that there was no likelihood of driving a vehicle while over the prescribed alcohol limit. The second concerned Section 11(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which required a defendant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they were not a member of a proscribed organisation or that they did not participate in its activities after it was proscribed. The House ruled that both provisions did infringe the presumption of innocence but were justified and proportionate, thus remaining valid. The reasoning emphasised the importance of the presumption of innocence and the balance that must be struck between individual rights and societal interests, while acknowledging the interpretative obligation under the Human Rights Act 1998 to reconcile statutory provisions with Convention rights as far as possible.