REGINA v ANTHONY LALA DANIEL [2002] EWCA Crim 959

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM
[2002] EWCA Crim 959Case No Case No: 200002512/X4Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Between
REGINAANTHONY LALA DANIEL
Before
Lord Justice Auld Mr(As Approved by the Court)Crown CopyrightDate 22 March 2002

Lord Justice Auld:

On

[1]29 th March 2000, before Mr. Assistant Recorder Kark in the Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames, the appellant was convicted of concealing, as a bankrupt, a debt due to him of £75,875.11, a debt in an amount that he was required to deliver to the Official Receiver, contrary to section 354(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986. On 5 th May 2000 the Assistant Recorder sentenced him to 150 hours’ community service. He appeals against conviction by leave of the single judge.[2]The issue raised in the appeal is the effect of section 352 of the 1986 Act which provides that a person is not guilty of an offence under section 354:
“if he proves that, at the time of the conduct constituting the offence, he had no intent to defraud or to conceal the state of his affairs.”
More particularly, the issue is whether that provision imposes a legal or “evidential” burden of proof on a defendant. If the former, it would conventionally be on a balance of probabilities. If the latter, there is authority that a defendant could discharge it by adducing sufficient evidence to raise an issue that he had had no intent to defraud or conceal the state of his affairs.[3]The facts, in outline, are as follows. Between 1990 and 1992 the appellant did some work for Barings Securities (“Barings”). In 1992 he submitted invoices to a total sum of £75,875.11 for that work, which were not settled. In 1995 Barings was taken over by Bishopscourt and then put into liquidation. The appellant then re-submitted the invoices, this time to the liquidator of Barings. In February 1996 his accountant submitted a claim form to the liquidator. In November 1996 she replied informing the appellant that his claims might result in the payment to him of funds, though she did not know how much or when.[4]On 13 th May 1997 the appellant was made bankrupt on an unopposed petition of the Inland Revenue. In June of that year he answered a bankruptcy preliminary questionnaire, which included warnings about telling the truth and making full disclosure. He put a slash through a box asking whether money was owed to him and wrote “No” in answer to a further question “does anyone owe you money?” And on 6 th June he attended an interview with an examiner in insolvency in the Official Receiver’s office in which he confirmed that he had “no assets of any description”.[5]Nearly a year later, in May 1998, the liquidator of Barings wrote to all creditors inviting them to submit proofs of debt. The applicant, on 4 th June, submitted a proof claiming the invoiced sum of £75,875.11, requesting that any cheques be made out to him personally and sent to him at his home address. At about this time the Official Receiver informed the liquidator of the appellant’s bankruptcy and she contacted him about it. He told her that he was, as he put it, “being threatened with” bankruptcy and followed the conversation with a letter to her stating that he had no knowledge of any bankruptcy order. The liquidator, by letter of 26 th June, replied stating that she had spoken to the Official Receiver and asked the appellant to contact him with a view to resolving the matter.[6]Within a few days after that, the appellant contacted Marks Bloom, a firm of licensed insolvency practitioners, ostensibly with a view to making an individual voluntary arrangement with his creditors. We say ”ostensibly” with such a view because the prosecution case was that it just a charade to extricate him from the consequence of his lies to the Official Receiver and the liquidator. He did not, in the event, enter into any such arrangement.[7]The prosecution case was that from 6 th June 1997, when the appellant in his response to the Official Receiver’s questionnaire stated that he was owed no money, he concealed a debt that he knew was owing to him. They asserted that, if as the appellant claimed, Barings’ failure to pay him had caused the downfall of his business, their debt to him would have been uppermost in his mind.[8]The appellant did not dispute the facts alleged by the prosecution. His case was that provided by section 352, namely that he had had no intention to defraud or to conceal the state of his affairs. In his evidence he said that when he had completed the Official Receiver’s questionnaire he had been confused and depressed and that the debt had not been in his mind at the time. He added that during the period covered by the indictment he had not been sure whether he would receive any of the money due to him, since he had not heard from the liquidator since November 1996.[9]He said that he had written the letter to the liquidator stating that he was unaware that he was bankrupt, but had not sent it and that someone else in his office must have done so. And he explained that he had wanted the liquidator to settle the Barings’ debt direct to him so that, through Marks Bloom, he could secure a better deal for his creditors. He relied upon letters in that context sent to him after the period covered by the indictment.[10]At the beginning of the trial counsel for the appellant invited the Judge, when he came to sum up the matter to the jury, to direct them that the section 352 burden on the appellant of proving that he had had no intent to defraud or to conceal the state of his affairs was evidential since, otherwise the provision would be incompatible with Article 6(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights. Although, the Human Rights Act 1998 had yet to come into force, many Courts and legal practitioners were anticipating the advent of Convention rights to our domestic law. The argument was that to impose a legal burden on the appellant would offend the spirit of Article 6(2), which provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Such a burden, counsel submitted, would be almost impossible for the appellant to discharge because he would have to prove a negative, that is, that throughout the year covered by the indictment, he had had no intent to conceal the debt.[11]The Assistant Recorder accepted that when the Human Rights Act 1998 would come into force on 2 nd October 2000, it would have retrospective effect and that he should, therefore, consider the submission that the Convention was already part of our domestic law. He said that, although he had no power to make a declaration of incompatibility, he was bound, under section 3 of the 1998 Act, to interpret it, so far as it was possible, in a way compatible with Convention rights. However, he rejected the need for recourse to such an interpretative aid in the context of these provisions, in particular to direct the jury that section 352 imposed on the appellant merely an evidential burden. He said:
“… that is not … what Section 352 provides. In my view, the prosecution have the responsibility of proving the essential elements of the offence, and only if they do so need the defendant consider availing himself of the defence set out in section 352.”
[12]The Assistant Recorder in his summing-up to the jury directed them that the prosecution had to prove three elements to make out the offence of concealment of property under section 354(1)(b): first, that at the material time the appellant was bankrupt, which was not in dispute; second, that he had concealed, in the sense of deliberate hiding, the debt from the Official Receiver; and third, that it was a debt which he was duty bound to deliver up to the Official Receiver. He emphasised that it was only if the jury were sure of all those three elements that they had to consider whether the appellant had made out his defence under section 352 by proving on a balance of probabilities that he had had no intent to defraud or to conceal the state of his affairs.[13]Before turning to the submissions of counsel on this appeal we should consider more closely the offence created by section 354 and the relationship to it of the defence provided by section 352. We should also say something about the law on provisions expressing a reverse burden of proof in criminal proceedings.[14]Section 354, the heading of which is “Concealment of property”, is one of a number of offence creating provisions under the general heading in Chapter VI of the 1986 Act of “Wrongdoing by the bankrupt before and after bankruptcy”. The offences created by the various provisions fall broadly into three categories. The first, into which section 354(1)(b) falls, are those which by the very act made criminal, are concerned with conduct calculated to deceive the Official Receiver, but where, despite the terms of some of the section headings, the prosecution is not required to prove fraud. Thus, section 353 is concerned with non-disclosure of property, section 354(1) and (2) with concealment of property, section 355 with concealment and falsification of books and papers, section 356(1) with material omissions in statements, section 357 with disposal of property, section 358 with absconding and section 359 with disposal of property obtained on credit. The second category is concerned with conduct expressly described as fraudulent and where the prosecution is required to prove fraud. Thus, section 356(2) is concerned with false statements made with a fraudulent intent, The third category is concerned with conduct which may fall short of deceitfulness, such as section 354(3) dealing with failure, without reasonable excuse, to account for or give a satisfactory explanation for the loss of property (see R v Salter [1968] 1 QB 793, CA, in which the corresponding offence in the Bankruptcy Act 1914 was held to be absolute), section 360, with obtaining credit or engaging in business, section 361, with failure to keep proper accounts and section 362, with gambling.[15]The draftsman of the Act has applied the defence in section 352 only to the first of those three categories. It can have no application to the second, which is expressly or plainly directed only at fraudulent conduct which the prosecution is required to prove. And it would be inappropriate to apply it to the third, which more modestly, though importantly, is aimed at the efficient enforcement of the bankruptcy regime. So the section 354(1)(b) offence of concealment and others in the same category might appear to fall into an intermediate class in terms of seriousness between offences of provable fraud and those that are or are close to offences of absolute liability. However, there is no such intermediate class for the purpose of sentence. Schedule 10 to the Act, setting out the maximum punishments for each offence, shows that all the offences in the first two categories attract the same high maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment and those in the third category the much lower maximum of two years imprisonment. Thus, the absence in section 354(1) and (2) of any overt mention of fraud, leaving it to be picked up if raised by way of defence under section 352, must leave the court, when sentencing, to infer it in most cases when the defence is not raised and to sentence accordingly. It is against that background that the Court should look for the essence of the offence of concealment under section 354(1)(b).[16]On one view – that adopted by the Assistant Recorder - the offence and the defence available under section 352 are self-contained and the availability of the latter does not affect what the prosecution must prove to convict on the former. As we have said, the act of concealment constituting the offence clearly connotes some element of mens rea which it is for the prosecution to prove, namely, a deliberate act of concealment. If the prosecution prove such an act and the defence do not raise the statutory defence in section 352, the offence is proved. It is conceivable in certain circumstances that there would be no overlap between the two provisions. A bankrupt might deliberately and deceptively conceal property from the Official Receiver without necessarily intending to defraud or to conceal the state of his affairs, for example, because he might have in mind dealing honestly and in some other and open way with his creditors. If he wishes to advance such an explanation, section 352 gives him the opportunity of avoiding a conviction that would otherwise follow from the prosecution’s proof of the elements making up section 354. In such circumstances - a possible outcome on the facts here - the Assistant Recorder’s simple analysis of the relationship between the two statutory provisions could be correct.[17]However, the reality of both the trial and sentencing process will in most cases of such prosecutions be different. Though the provisions are structurally and, on the face of it, logically separate, it will rarely be the case, either as a matter of conviction or as to the appropriate level of sentence, that they are so in practice. The issue of a defendant’s intent to defraud or conceal the state of his affairs, though not spelled out in the charge, is what it is all about. Accordingly, our view is that section 354(1)(b) in its normal application, that is, considered in conjunction with section 352, reverses the burden of proof on an essential element of the offence by requiring him to prove lack of fraud or dishonesty beyond the simple act of concealment.[18]It is on the interpretation of Section 352, imposing that reverse burden of proof, that Convention difficulties have arisen. As we have said, the conviction of the appellant on 29th March 2000 occurred before the main provisions of the 1998 Act came into force. Since then in R v. Lambert [2001] 3 WLR 206 , the Appellate Committee, by a majority have held that the Act was not retrospective so as to enable an appellant after it had come into force to rely on incompatibility under section 6 or to require an appellate court by the application of section 3(1) to read the statutory provision in question compatibly with the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2). In R. v Kansal (No. 2) [2001] 3 WLR 1562 the House, by a majority have held to that decision and have also followed it in R. v. Benjafield [2002] 2 WLR 234E.[19]It follows that, for the purpose of this appeal, section 3 of the 1998 Act has no application so as to require section 352 to be read and to give effect to Convention rights, whatever they are, on this issue. Looked at purely as a matter of our domestic law before the coming into force of the 1998 Act, there is ample authority to support the Assistant Recorder’s direction to the jury that the appellant had to discharge a persuasive, not merely evidential, burden of proof by showing on a balance of probabilities that he had no intent to defraud or conceal the state of his affairs. Lord Clyde in R v. Lambert , acknowledged, at paragraph 132, the generally recognised construction of such provisions in English law as imposing a persuasive burden of proof on a defendant to establish his defence on a balance of probabilities.[20]Mr. Henry Bowyer, on behalf of the appellant, submitted that, even if section 352 has to be read in the light of the common law as it had developed to just before the coming into force of the 1998 Act, there were some moves by then towards the view that such provisions could or should impose an evidential, rather than a persuasive, burden. The source for such an argument may be found in Professor Glanville Williams’ article in [1988] CLJ 261, at 264-5, The Logic of ‘Exceptions. Lord Steyn, in R v. DPP, ex p. Kebilene [1999] 3 WLR 973, at 984, described the argument as “respectable” in the light of the disfavour with which reverse legal burden provisions had been regarded by the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Hong Kong v. Lee Kwong-kut [1993] AC 951 and in leading judgments in other common law jurisdictions. Respectable though the argument might have been, it cannot avail the appellant. The weight of judicial authority at that stage favoured the long established and conventional approach identified by Lord Clyde in Lambert .[21]Mr. Bowyer sought to overcome the formidable obstacle of the non-retrospectivity of the 1998 Act by raising what amounts to an abuse of process argument. He said that, notwithstanding the House of Lords’ ruling that Convention rights would only become part of our law on the coming into force of the 1998 Act, by the time of the trial courts and those appearing before them conducted proceedings on the basis that they had come into force. As is apparent from the Assistant Recorder’s ruling, he certainly proceeded on that assumption, though, in directing the jury that section 352 imposed a reverse legal burden of proof, Mr. Bowyer submitted he did so wrongly. However, the main burden of Mr. Bowyer’s complaint in this part of his argument was that, given such general acceptance of the applicability of the Convention at the time, it is unfair for the prosecution to rely now in this appeal on the House of Lords’ later rulings against retrospectivity.[22]Mr. James Eadie, for the Crown, responded that it cannot be an abuse for a prosecutor to ask the Court of Appeal to apply the law as it is at the time of the appeal, which is against retrospectivity. He added that if there was a convention as to the advance applicability of the Convention at the trial, it was not based on a misapprehension as to the applicable law at that time, but as to what the law on retrospectivity would be. Put another way, he said that there can be no unfairness in applying the non-retrospectivity rule in Lambert because, even if that had been clear at the time, the burden on the appellant would still have been persuasive.[23]In our view, Mr.Eadie is right. It cannot be an abuse of process or otherwise inequitable on the hearing of an appeal against conviction for the Court to apply the law that bound the court below at the time of trial and which binds the Court of Appeal at the time of appeal. That is sufficient to dispose of the appeal, but it may be of assistance to give our views on the alternative basis on which both counsel made submissions, namely that section 3(1) of the 1998 Act governs the interpretation so as to require section 352, if possible, to be read and given effect compatibly with the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2). Statutory reversals of the burden of proof in criminal cases are tolerated by the Strasbourg jurisprudence in certain circumstances so long as they are confined within reasonable limits, taking into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence; see Salabiaku v. France (1988) 13 EHRR 379, EtHR. In Lambert the House of Lords ruled by a majority (Lord Hutton dissenting) and obiter that a reverse burden of proof as to guilty knowledge in section 28(2) and (3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 could be read as creating an evidential burden only, namely reading the words “prove” and “proves” as meaning giving “sufficient evidence”.[24]The law has moved on since then. This Court has recently ruled in R v. Carass , 19 th December 2001 (2001/4788/S3), on other similar provisions and wording in the Insolvency Act 1986 Act to those in this case. They are contained in 206((1)(a) (2) and (4) in relation to the concealment of company debts in anticipation of winding up, deeming concealment an offence subject to the defendant proving that he had no intent to defraud. Waller LJ, giving the judgment of the Court, held that the burden on the defendant was evidential only. He said: “59. … In truth, albeit the onus is on the Crown to prove concealment of a debt, it is unrealistic to argue that an intent to defraud is not also an element of the offence and indeed an important element of the offence.60. Furthermore, what we would glean from Lambert is that albeit it may be possible to justify imposing a legal or persuasive burden, the onus on those seeking to persuade the court that that is necessary in any case is a high one. Lord Steyn says that expressly and we believe that view to be consistent with all of the other speeches including Lord Hutton’s dissenting speech. Thus the proper approach has to be that if a reverse legal burden is to be imposed on an accused it must be justified and in particular it must be demonstrated why a legal or persuasive burden rather than an evidential burden is necessary. …61. …Common sense dictates that if concealment is proved the evidential burden will itself be quite a difficult burden for the defendant to surmount. If however he were to surmount it, then it would be less than satisfactory if he could still be convicted if the jury were not sure that he had intended to defraud. Nothing that we have seen demonstrates a justification for that being a possible result in some cases because of some “threat faced by society” [one of the three “Pannick” questions; see paragraph 27 below]. … 62 Thus we would declare that the judge was wrong insofar as he felt obliged to direct the jury that section 206(4) imposed a persuasive burden on the defendant … ‘We would declare that the burden is evidential only and it is therefore appropriate to read the sections as follows:- It is a defence for a person charged under paragraph (a) … of subsection (1) (under subsection (2) in respect of the things mentioned in either of those two paragraphs) to adduce evidence sufficient to raise an issue that {he} had no intent to defraud, unless, if he does so, the prosecution proves the contrary beyond reasonable doubt’”. .[25]In our view, unless it can be distinguished, the reasoning of the Court in Carass , albeit on different provisions of the 1988 Act, is binding on us. The nature of the offence in section 206(1)(a) and (2) and that of the defence, with its reverse burden of proof in section 206(4), and their relationship one with another, are sufficiently similar in form and purpose to the later provisions in the Act that we are considering to make both the context and the reasoning of Carass indistinguishable. It, therefore binds us.[26]But for that conclusion, we could not have construed section 352 as imposing only “an evidential burden of proof”, whatever that may mean, on a defendant. That is because, with respect to their Lordships’ obiter views in Lambert and the Court’s ruling in Carass, the words “if he proves” must, as a matter of plain English, mean more than the evidential raising of an issue for the prosecution to refute beyond reasonable doubt. See Professor Di Birch’s commentary on Lambert in [2001] Crim LR 807, especially the last paragraph to that effect on page 809, helpfully drawing attention to the following words of Lord Devlin, giving reasons for the advice of the Board in Jayasena v. R [1970] AC 618 , PC, at 624C-E (seemingly not cited in Lambert) :
“Their Lordships do not understand what is meant by the phrase 'evidential burden of proof’. They understand, of course, that in trial by jury a party may be required to adduce some evidence in support of his case, whether on the general issue or on a particular issue, before that issue is left to the jury. How much evidence has to be adduced depends upon the nature of the requirement. It may be such evidence as, if believed and left uncontradicted and unexplained, could be accepted by the jury as proof. It is doubtless permissible to describe the requirement as a burden, and it may be convenient to call it an evidential burden. But it is confusing to call it a burden of proof. Further, it is misleading to call it a burden of proof, whether described as legal or evidential or by any other adjective, when it can be discharged by the production of evidence that falls short of proof. The essence of the appellant’s case is that he has not got to provide any sort of proof that he was acting in private defence. So it is a misnomer to call whatever it is that he has to provide a burden of proof ….”
[27]It is true that section 3(1) requires courts, through the medium of interpretation, to strive for compatibility, if necessary by reading down over-broad legislation or reading necessary safeguards into a statute or by giving a provision a meaning that it would not ordinarily bear. But there must be some limit to the extent to which the plain meaning of statutory language can be ignored or simply changed in the cause of securing compatibility. Those who are governed by, and seek to order their conduct according to, statutory words are entitled to a broad measure of certainty as to what they mean, not some contrary or wholly different meaning which a court, if and when the matter reaches it, might or might not consider permissible under section 3(1) driven by an imperative to find compatibility at all costs.[28]In our view, where there is plain incompatibility between the ordinary and natural meaning of statutory words whatever the context , and Article 6(2), the courts should take care not to strive for compatibility by so changing the meaning of those words as to give them a sense that they cannot, in the sense intended by section 3(1), possibly bear.[29]Whilst there may be some circularity in the exercise, the first step is to determine the essentials of the statutory offence and what Article 6(2) requires given those essentials (see e.g per Lord Woolf in Lee Kwong-kut at 968E and 969F). T he balancing exercise suggested by Mr. David Pannick, QC, and adopted by Lord Hope in Kebilene , at 386C, may be a useful starting point, namely:
“… in considering where the balance lies it may be useful to consider the following questions: (1) what does the prosecution have to prove in order to transfer the onus to the defence? (2) what is the burden on the accused – does it relate to something which is likely to be within his knowledge or (I would add) to which he readily has access? (3) what is the nature of the threat faced by society which the provision is designed to combat? …”
[30]However, it should be recognised that that formulation, particularly question 3, strongly reflects the facts and legislation under consideration in Kebilene , which were very different – from those in this case or in Carass . The 1986 Act is aimed at a defined and circumscribed set of circumstances in which the law imposes duties upon an individual. When a person becomes bankrupt he is made aware of its purpose and the duties it imposes on him. Unlike citizens who are not bankrupt, he knows that he must make full disclosure of all material facts, that he is to be questioned and that he must answer the questions truthfully. Further, he knows that the purpose of the disclosure is to protect the rights of his creditors. Assuming that awareness, to conceal a debt has obvious significance. In such circumstances, an act of concealment cannot be equated with conduct of an every day nature by an innocent person. It has a marked factual similarity with Mr Salebiaku’s conduct when, after being warned of his obligation to declare goods on importation, he walked through the green customs channel at Roissy airport.[31]Thus, where a bankrupt, knowing what is required of him, conceals a debt, how should the burden imposed on him of explaining his concealment be regarded? If he inadvertently “concealed” the debt he will not be guilty of an offencer under section 354, regardless of the defence provided by section 352, because of lack of intent. Why should it be unreasonable to require a person, who has deliberately concealed a debt in circumstances where he knows he was obliged to disclose it, prove that he did not intend to defraud or to conceal the state of his affairs. Such a burden does not seem to us, in the circumstances we have mentioned to contravene Article 6(2). The following words of Lord Diplock in Ong Ah Chuan v The Public Prosecutor [1981] AC 648, PC, at 671D-E, appear to us as relevant in this statutory and factual context as they were in that case, which concerned statutory presumptions:
“In a crime of specific intent where the difference between it and some lesser offence is the particular purpose with which an act, in itself unlawful, was done,…it borders on the fanciful to suggest that a law offends against some fundamental rule of natural justice because it provides that upon the prosecution’s proving that certain acts consistent with that purpose and in themselves unlawful were done by the accused, the court shall infer that they were in part done for that purpose unless there is evidence adduced which on the balance of probabilities suffices to displace the inference. The purpose with which he did an act is peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused. There is nothing unfair in requiring him to satisfy the court that he did the acts for some less heinous purposed if such be the fact…”
[32]It is true that Ong was concerned with, and Lord Diplock went on to refer specifically to such presumptions being a common feature of. legislation concerning the possession and use of things dangerous to society. However, the reasoning seems to us to apply equally to offences of the sort covered by sections 206 and 354 of the 1986 Act, in which the constituents of the statutory defence provided are solely within the defendant’s knowledge.[33]The importance or weight of Mr Pannick’s question 3 may differ according to the legislative context. In each case the court should pay close attention to the mischief at which the legislative provision under consideration is aimed snf the social damage of not meeting that mischief .[34]In determining the essentials of an offence, courts should also keep in mind the distinction between the procedural guarantees provided by Article 6(2) and the substantive elements of the offence, a distinction that the Strasbourg Court has now acknowledged in the civil sphere in Z & Ors v. United Kingdom [2002] 34 EHRR 97 , at 138, paras. 100-101, when reviewing its decision in Osman v. United Kingdom [2000] 29 EHRR 245 , at paras 138-139. As Paul Roberts has argued, in an article entitled The Presumption of Innocence Brought Home? Kebilene [2002] 118 LQR 41, at 50:
“Article 6(2) has no bearing on the reduction or elimination of mens rea requirements, and is therefore perfectly compatible with offences of strict or even absolute liability.”
[35]Subject to such considerations, it is plain that the “Pannick” balancing exercise, suitably adapted to the mischief at which the legislation is aimed, provides a principled, and elasticity of, approach to what Article 6(2) requires in any given statutory context; and that is how the Courts in at least two recent decisions have dealt with such an issue. See, for example, Lynch v. DPP 8 th November 2001, DC (CO/418/2001) and R v. Drummond , 7 th March 2002, CA (2001 00542 Z1). If, nevertheless, the statute, on its plain meaning is incompatible with the Article, the courts should not seek to avoid that by introducing an impermissible elasticity to the meaning of the English language. They should face up to the incompatibility, not give the statutory words a meaning that they cannot respectably bear and which Parliament clearly did not intend them to have.[36]However, such considerations and where they might lead in the provisions that we are considering do not, for the reasons we have given, arise for determination in this case, even if we were not precluded by the Court’s decision in Carass from such determination. For the reasons we have given, the law to be applied in this case is that before the advent of Convention rights. On that basis, the Assistant Recorder’s direction that the appellant bore a persuasive, not merely an evidential, burden of proof in advancing his defence under section 352 was correct.[37]Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Cited in 10 later judgments

and 1 more case