So the defendant must expicitly deny it before proper proof is presented ? What sort of thing could possibly prove innocence ? A coma or merely a denial ? The

So the defendant must expicitly deny it before proper proof is presented ? What sort of thing could possibly prove innocence ? A coma or merely a denial ? The text of RIPA49 states the only defense is to produce the documents and prove you were entitled to them - which is very different. The law does state that the initial proof is only content description and date which seems a lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt. So it creates a criminal offense, does that mean the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt and is that a jury trial ? What proof was presented in the previous 3 RIPA49 jailings ? IP addresses, footage or testimony that the guy was using that computer at that time, i.e. means and opportunity ? My guess is not but I really hope you can show I mistaken and British Justice still stands.