Speeding Bad Photos show no evidence of who was driving

[HandyAndy]

So the registered keeper has to prove his innocence?

Not of speeding he doesn't. In those circumstances the speeding charge would be a dead duck as the police have no evidence to prove who was driving.

The only charge available to them would be "failing to provide driver's details" which would be laid against the recipient of the request (in this case the Registered Keeper).

In that event, only after the police have produced evidence which would otherwise see him convicted would the defendant have to counter it.

In the circumstances you describe, all the police have to do is to produce evidence that the request was properly served and that no response was received. Without making out the statutory defence the defendant would be convicted.

Using your principle, you could say that everybody facing a criminal charge has to prove their innocence. The order of events is that the prosecution put their evidence before the court. The defendant then has the opportunity to ask the court to find that there is "no case to answer" (i.e. that the court could not convict him on the evidence they have seen so far). In the circumstances you describe and provided the evidence I mention has been produced (and the court was satisfied with it) that would be unlikely. So that does indeed leave the defendant to "prove his innocence" (i.e. to produce evidence which either counters that of the prosecution or provides a defence).

But that is entirely different to your supposition where you suggest that somebody can be convicted of a driving offence when the police have no evidence to prove who was driving, and they have simply left it to the Registered Keeper to rebut their accusation.