> It isn't hard to imagine the police assuming any file they don't understand is that way because it is encrypted True, but they have to prove they have reason

> It isn't hard to imagine the police assuming any file they don't understand is that way because it is encrypted True, but they have to prove they have reasonable grounds for believing, not just that it's encrypted, but also that you have the key to it. > "I have no clue" is not going to cause reasonable doubt It doesn't need to cause reasonable doubt, it just has to raise an issue about whether or not you have they key. In which case the police have to prove you do beyond reasonable doubt. But you are right - it is ambiguous, and that evidential presumption is in danger of being interpreted in a very anti-defendant way. But: > I have lost faith in any chance of governments sticking to reasonableness Thankfully, it's not up to the government to interpret legislation, it's up to the courts. And they have to interpret criminal legislation (a) in favour of the defendant (common law principle), and (b) compatibly with the human rights act. That second one is powerful, and has resulted in anti-defendant statues being interpreted almost out of all recognition by a court happy to interpret stuff compatibly with the HRA right to a fair trial. See e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/may/18/lords.politics http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/may/18/lords.politics .