Crime
High Court Judge Declares Reverse Burden of Proof Provision in Drug Act Unconstitutional
A high court judge has ruled that a major section of the Drug Abuse Act, which imposes a burden of proof on the accused, is unconstitutional. This decision affects a high-profile drug case.
2 min read
Originally published by www.nationnews.com (opens in new tab)
A major section of the Drug Abuse (Prevention and Control) Act which placed a “reverse burden of proof” on an accused has been deemed unconstitutional by a high court judge.
And with that decision, one of the men in a 2018 high profile drug case will not have to face judge and jury.
“The provisions of Section 42(1) of the Drug Abuse (Prevention and Control) Act operate so as to impose a legal burden on an accused person to disprove the mental element of the offences therein,” Justice Shona Griffith ruled.
“The imposition of the legal burden is in breach of the accused person’s right to the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Section 18(2)(a) of the Constitution. It is therefore declared that Section 42(1) of the Drug Act is unconstitutional,” the judge held.
The decision was handed down by Justice Griffith in a matter of judicial review brought by Goddards Enterprises Limited director Christopher Glen Rogers.
Rogers, of York Road, Navy Gardens, Christ Church, and Walter O’Neal Prescod, a sailor, of Emerald Park East, St Philip, had been accused of possession, trafficking and importation of 267.4 pounds of cannabis on July 23, 2018, on board company yacht Ecstasy. (HLE)
