Re: Although the burden of proof lies with Love
The relevant bit of badly written legal jargon is Section 53, para 2 of RIPA (2000):
"In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it."
Which appears to mean that forgetting a key is not a valid defence when charged with failing to supply it.
Para 3 then confirms that anyone trying to use the "Sorry, I can't remember" defence has to produce some (actually "sufficient") evidence to back this up.
"For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if—
(a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
What would count as "sufficient" evidence is a moot point. Would:
"I cannot remember what I had for I had for breakfast yesterday - how do expect me to remember a sequence of 30 random letters and digits that I haven't used in the last three months?" be adequate?
But sub para (b) is similarly badly written - "The prosecution will show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant can remember his password."
Biting the hand that feeds IT
