Dear all

Can anyone remember the name of a fairly recent case, I believe it was a high court decision, about fraud prosections and the burden of proof? If memory serves, they were considering which burden had to apply - balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt. I think there was some confusion about what aspect of the charge the "beyond reasonable doubt" bit applied too.

Sorry to be so vague, any ideas would be helpful. I think the judgement came out within the last 12 months, but I cannot say whether it was this year or last.

Thanks in advance.