Catherine Roberts is a Commercial Manager in the Thomson Reuters Legal, Tax & Accounting Commercial group.

One Response

  1. Gavin R. Putland
    Gavin R. Putland at | | Reply

    Because the High Court found that the reverse onus of proof applied to the offence of possession, but not to the offence of trafficking with which the defendant was charged, it was not required to consider a more fundamental question, namely whether the reverse onus, even for simple possession, is compatible with the RULE OF LAW. It isn’t. Therefore it is unconstitutional in ALL jurisdictions. Does not the very word “jurisdiction” imply the rule of law?

    More: http://is.gd/noreverse .

Leave a Reply