CLAUSE 8.—(Burden of Proof.) (Hansard, 14 May 1918)

§ Mr. BOOTH
I do appeal to the President of the Board of Agriculture to withdraw this Clause, and unless a satisfactory case is made out in its favour I am so much averse to it that I shall feel inclined to challenge a Division. I really do not think the Clause is necessary. It is a Clause which has only made its appearance in the last few years, but it is now creeping into all these Departmental Bills, some far more important than this. Summed up in a word, it is that the officers of the Department are too lazy to get at the case. They not only want a stringent law but they do not want the trouble of proving it before any bench, and we are now finding that there is always an attempt made to insert these words so that the onus of proof shall be on the person charged. That is entirely contrary to the spirit of British law. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) brought in a Bill of this kind which dealt with inspection—the Herring Branding Bill, I think it was—it had a Clause exactly like this. Where an inspector charged a man that certain parts of his premises were being used for an illicit trade and did not contain an article according to the views of the Board of Trade then the onus was to be on the man charged to prove that he was using some empty cask for a particular kind of herring. If he used it to store sand in he was at the mercy of some inspector who said he had not a particular 'kind of herring in that cask, and he had to prove a case against that charge. The right hon. Gentleman who was President of the Board of Trade admitted that the case was effective, and withdrew the Clause. I submit that in a Clause like this it is not wise to proceed in this way in violation of all the recognised prin- 312 ciples of British law. Surely it is enough that a man should be involved in these heavy penalties when a case is proved against him.
The Bill is being made stringent, and when my right hon. Friend points out that certain words are in order to prevent misuse or to stop a loophole he has the sympathy of the Committee. We are strengthening the Bill Clause by Clause and making it water-tight, and that is all the more reason why there should be no Clause under which the onus should lie on the person charged, and that until he can clear himself by some legal demonstration be is considered guilty. I submit that this Clause will bear unfairly on the small man. Possibly the man who employs a barrister can prove his case, but the poor man rather than be in this conflict and have the burden of conducting a case of proof in the Court will give in, perhaps give up his business, and say the country is not giving him a fair chance. That has happened repeatedly in other industries. I am not specially familiar with horse breeding, but it is largely because of this Clause being in the Bill that I am giving attention to the subject. I have opposed it in every case, and as long as I am a Member of this House I shall always oppose a Clause of this character, whether it be in a Bill dealing with horse breeding, bee disease, herring branding, or anything of the kind. I think we are entitled to ask our Departments when they come to enforce legislation which they want and think is necessary, which is increasing the amount of State intervention and lessening the individual rights to take the trouble to prove the case themselves. It should not be enough for them to put up a sort of primâ facie case, and that unless the man has the presence of mind and courage enough to defy the officers of the Department, judgment should go against him by default. I am sure the measure would act all right without this. There is no object that I can see in Clause 8 except to facilitate convictions. It does not deal with defence, it does not strengthen the case against the man, it does not enable the wrongdoer to escape. All that it does is to enable the officers of the Department to get a conviction without taking the trouble to examine and verify the facts. I do, therefore, appeal most strongly to my right hon. Friend, unless he considers this vital to the machinery of this Bill, to withdraw this obnoxious Clause.

§ Mr. ARCHDALE
I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. I know that in my country it is most necessary. A man with a stallion is not such a fool, or so poor, as not to know that a licence is very easily carried about with him, and a man going about with an unlicensed stallion might do a great deal of harm to the unfortunate man with mares. I think it is a most necessary provision.

§ Sir J. SPEAR
I quite agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, and I venture to appeal to the President of the Board of Agriculture not to yield. It would greatly menace the success of the Bill. It is impossible for a man hiring the use of a horse to produce the proof, and the onus ought to be with the owner of the animal whose use he wants to sell. To yield to the suggestion of the hon. Member would greatly injure the success of the Bill.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I am afraid I have not made my point clear. I am not against the merits of the Clause, or owners of mares being protected. It is not that to which I object. What I do object to are the words Until the contrary is proved it shall be assumed that no licence was then in force. I am against that assumption. I am not at all against the man having to produce his licence, and I am not at all against anything that is in the Bill to make it quite clear. What I am against is that it is assumed he is in the wrong until he proves he is in the right. It is the latter words of the Clause to which I object.

§ Mr. PROTHERO
I regret that I am unable to accept the alteration suggested by the hon. Member. The production of a licence is no great hardship on the man to whom it is granted, and it is the only form of protection that you can possibly give to the owner of the mare who is paying for the use of the horse. I think it is quite necessary that this Clause in the present form should be in the Bill.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I am sorry to have to press the point, because I do not want to be unreasonable. If the mere production of the licence by the man will be considered proof, well and good. Hon. Members may think so; but it is because it is not so that I have risen. If the Clause said the contrary was held to be the case until the production of the licence, then I 314 withdraw my opposition. What I take it to mean is that he has to prove it in Court. If the production of the certificate at once clears the man, whether he is in the street or at a show, or elsewhere, it will be his own fault if he does not produce it. I am not at all sure; and there are no Law Officers of the Crown present. Do I understand it to mean that the production of the certificate clears him?

§ Mr. PROTHERO
Yes; certainly that is the meaning.