Hansen v R
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Hansen v R | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Paul Rodney Hansen v The Queen |
| Decided | 20 February 2007 |
| Citation | [2007] NZSC 7 |
| Transcript | Available here |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | Court of Appeal (CA 128/05, 29 August 2005) |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ |
| Keywords | |
| reverse onus of proof, presumption of innocence, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 | |
Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7 is a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand concerning the compatibility of a reverse onus provision in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 with the presumption of innocence under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). Paul Rodney Hansen was convicted of possessing cannabis for supply after being found with over 28 grams of cannabis plant. Under section 6(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, a person in possession of more than that quantity was deemed to possess it for supply "until the contrary is proved." The question on appeal was whether this imposed a full legal burden of proof on the accused, and whether it could be read down under section 6 of NZBORA to be consistent with the right to be presumed innocent under section 25(c).
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that the words "until the contrary is proved" impose a legal burden and cannot be interpreted as requiring only an evidential burden, as this would contradict the plain text of the provision. Because section 4 of NZBORA prevents courts from declining to apply an inconsistent enactment, section 6(6) had to be given full effect. The judges differed in their reasoning on the interplay of sections 4, 5, and 6 of NZBORA, with Elias CJ dissenting on the role of section 5 in the interpretive exercise.
Hansen v R is the leading New Zealand authority on statutory interpretation under the NZBORA, establishing that section 6 requires courts to prefer a rights-consistent meaning where one is genuinely available, but does not authorise strained interpretations departing from clear parliamentary intent. It remains the definitive authority on reverse onus provisions in New Zealand criminal law.
Paul Rodney Hansen was convicted after a jury trial in the Invercargill District Court on a charge under s 6(1)(f) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 of possession of cannabis plant for the purpose of supply (to a person under 18) or sale (to a person 18 or over). He was found on 26 May 2003 in joint possession with another man of more than 28 grams of cannabis plant, approximately 375 grams of clipped cannabis head and 1520 grams of other cannabis plant material.[1]
Section 6(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act provides that a person in possession of more than the specified quantity of a controlled drug (at the time, 28 grams or more of cannabis plant) is “until the contrary is proved” deemed to possess it for the purpose of supply or sale. The trial judge directed the jury that Hansen bore the legal burden of disproving that purpose on the balance of probabilities.[1]
Hansen appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal (CA 128/05, 29 August 2005), which declined to depart from its earlier decision in R v Phillips [1991] 3 NZLR 175. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted on the question whether s 6(6) places a legal onus on the accused that is inconsistent with the right under s 25(c) NZBORA to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.[2]
