The presumption of innocence is not as fundamental as some believe!

The presumption of innocence is considered "reversed" when a legal provision shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, meaning they must actively prove their innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; this is often referred to as a "reverse onus" clause and can be seen as a violation of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty.".
Key points about a reversed presumption of innocence:
Reverse onus provisions:
Laws that explicitly state the accused must prove their innocence on a specific element of the crime, often requiring only a "balance of probabilities" standard instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Impact on fair trial:
A significant concern with reversed presumption of innocence is that it can undermine the fundamental right to a fair trial, as the accused may be convicted even if there is reasonable doubt about their guilt.
Strict interpretation:
Courts generally scrutinize reverse onus clauses carefully, and will only uphold them if they are deemed necessary and proportionate to the crime in question.