The Herald editorial:
The most contentious idea involves changing the burden of proof so it lies with the perpetrators of child abuse and domestic violence, not the victims. Allied to this is a review of the adversarial system that is said to place an excessive burden of proof on victims, and to lead often to drawn-out proceedings that further disadvantage victims and put many into significant debt.
The report says people with experience of the present model had indicated they would favour a more collaborative system.
The report is not totally out of step in advancing these views. A flipping of the deeply embedded precept of the burden of proof, whereby the necessity to provide proof lies with whoever lays charges, is no longer beyond the pale. Abusive parents must now prove to Child, Youth and Family that they are no longer a threat. As well, bail amendment legislation requires a person on a murder charge or repeat violence, class A drug or sex charges to persuade a judge that the community will be safe if they are released. New Zealand’s appalling family violence record — the police respond to a call relating to this every seven minutes, according to the report — convinces some that there is good reason to further override the principle.
These are about people who have already been convicted of an offence. That is very different to saying anyone charged should have to prove their innocence.
But any such impulse should be resisted. Arguably, the two steps taken by the Government are valid responses to extraordinary circumstances where there is a clear danger to members of society. Both do not involve such a sweeping inversion of the burden of proof principle as would be the case if it were applied to all alleged perpetrators of child abuse and domestic violence.
The precept that a defendant has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is too fundamental to our legal system and too strong a safeguard against wrongful conviction to be so comprehensively dismissed.
Absolutely. But sadly Labour is incapable of even deciding they’re against such a thing.
Labour’s @DavidCunliffeMP says they need to consider Glenn Inquiry report before taking a position on proposal to shift burden of proof
— Felix Marwick (@felixmarwick) June 16, 2014
So I’ve got an idea. If Labour is open to reversing the burden of proof on allegations, then we should start the process by alleging that they have filed corrupt false donation returns and require them to prove they are innocent!