Talk:Presumption of innocence
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Presumption of innocence article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Archives: 1 | |||
 |
|
|
| WikiProject Human rights | (Rated C-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Law | (Rated Start-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
[edit] UK decryption of data
Article states, "If the suspect is unwilling (or even unable) to do so [decrypt data], it is an offence. Citizens can therefore be convicted and imprisoned without any evidence that the encrypted material was unlawful. Further, the onus is on the defendant to decrypt the data, and having lost the key or the password is not considered reasonable excuse."
This is not actually quite the situation, though this was the position put forward in the press at the time.
It is not an offence to be unable to decrypt data, but the onus is on the defendant to prove that he is unable to do so (but only to the civil standard of proof (i.e. on the balance of probabilities - not beyond reasonable doubt)).
Loosing the key or password is also a reasonable excuse, but the onus is once again on the defendant to proove the point (on the balance of probabilities).
From the article standpoint, these two situations are examples (of many) in UK law where the defendant is presumed guilty unless he can proove himself innocent.
The one controversial area that the press reported was that the defendant is required to provide the decryption key for any file or drive that the authorities deem to be an encrypted, even if it isn't in actuality. This latter point is not the case, the authorities have to proove the offence of refusal to decrypt beyond reasonable doubt - that means prooving the file is encrypted (beyond reasonable doubt). This latter point may be easy for an obviously encrypted file, but may be more problematic for a file that appears to be something else (e.g. a binary image of processor code). 109.145.21.107 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Literal latin translation vs saying.
I just removed 'homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus' which is not the historical or cited source for this article, while it is touted as being the direct english to latin translation it is not the foundation of the legal term or saying. The concept of innocent until proven guilty comes from this. I've reverted it because we are talking legal terms; "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" is the correct one. The literal translation of the Latin "homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus" was the translation of the saying's principal and not the saying itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. The expression "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" is about the burden of proof not the presumption of innocence. It applies equally in civil cases where there is no guilt or innocence. It means literally, he who asserts must prove, which is not the same as presumption of innocence. The expression 'homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus' translates literally as a man is innocent until proved guilty, and is therefore the correct one. It's moreover the translation given in Wikipedia already at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(H). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.31.162 (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
