"innocence until proven guilty has no veracity in a court of law, the onus is upon you (that being me) to prove your innocence by disproving the statements of the police officers"
That sounds like instant grounds for appeal. It also sounds like a magistrate not a judge.
[Edit. Just seen your response; it was a magistrate. This is a real cause for concern.]
Apart from anything else, in a jury trial the jury is the tribunal of fact, not the judge. It's standard procedure for the judge to tell the jury that they must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, that it's up to the prosecution to prove its case, not the defendant.
In the so-called Diplock courts in NI (i.e. trials without jury) the judge does become the tribunal of fact. In that case the judge gives a reasoned statement of how he reached his verdict, something that juries don't do, and in those I've heard the accused having to prove innocence wasn't a factor. And to forestall any comments on that I've heard both magistrates and judges dismiss cases.