[jbb67]

I understand why the presumption was there.

If it's not then every single case of tax evasion people would claim that they had paid and the computer must have lost the payment. Every single traffic camera offense would be contested. Every time you didn't have a train ticket people would claim the computer lost it. And so on.

And there would be months and months of delays if every time it had to be proved beyond a doubt that the equipment was working fully in that case out of all proportion to the risk of there actually being a problem.

However clearly there does need to be a way to challenge the presumption too. Of course just assuming equipment is working is entirely unfair.

After a brief look at the article it looks a reasonable weakening of the presumption which allows the court to consider and reject a challenge when they think fit according to the court rules (to be established) Pretty much like any other form of evidence.