Woolmington v DPP 1935 and burden of proof

[carinaman]

I've recently read commentary on an Appeal Judgment, not the case in the title, and the Prosecutor and the Judge got the Statute being used very wrong indeed. How they'd approached the problem besides being wrong, also clearly went against the Intent of the draft legislation.

A cynic could think the Prosecutor and Judge may've been determined to get a result even if that meant a rather bizarre and incorrect approach and misuse of precedent.

I think Woolmington is about the Criminal standard of burden of proof, beyond reasonable doubt, and being innocent until proven guilty. The commentary of the Appeal Judgment I read mentioned the increasing use of 'Reverse Burden'.

Are there any examples of where the burden of proof as been reversed and it's up to the accused to prove that they're not guilty rather than being innocent until proven otherwise?

There is a slight age of Covid-19 angle to my thinking on this where people judge, inform and mete out retribution to others for appearing to deviate from the Covid-19 'lockdown' guidance. Vigilantes and unthinking adherents have acted on assumptions someone is guilty without possessing all of the facts.