Another issue with the Bill is the legal test for ascertaining whether agents or toxins are being developed, produced or used for a hostile purpose. The effect of sections 7 and 8 is to create a presumption that materials are for a hostile purpose and to place the burden of proof on the defendant rather than the prosecution. This approach is interesting but there is a danger associated with it. I ask the Minister to elaborate further on this on Committee Stage. The Bills Digest mentions a case in the UK, R. v. Kebilene, in whose judgment it was stated: "[I]n the context of a serious offence such as terrorism, a reverse burden of proof provision on a matter central to the wrongdoing alleged against the defendant would breach article 6.2 of the European Convention of Human Rights". In view of the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights is now on a statutory footing in Ireland following the passage of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, this should be given further consideration so that the Bill does not fall foul of it in the future, because it is a welcome Bill.

See this item in context