But isn't that how it's supposed to work? As has frequently been stated here and elsewhere, the defence have to prove nothing.
On the face of it most would agree, but as far as I can see it's increasing a grey area. If one looks at the Red Arrows Cunningham case (same QC acting for families in both cases, and not very well in my opinion) it was often asked how on earth the HSE could prove MoD hadn't received the information that would have prevented the accident. But it was never asked to - it just made a series of accusations which were accepted by the Coroner and Judge; despite verbal, written and video evidence proving them outright lies. The HSE has since admitted it made no attempt to review this evidence, but told both Lincs Police and Judge it carried out a full review and deemed it 'irrelevant'. (Both have recently reaffirmed they are content with this). Today, I'm thoroughly dazed and confused by our legal system. There is no consistency at all.