Electoral Administration Bill

I have to confess that I am a little puzzled by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. If a person takes all reasonable steps to ascertain the matters mentioned in subsection (2) and has not ascertained them, then that person cannot be said to be somebody who ought reasonably to have known of the matters mentioned in paragraph (b). But the distinction here is that under new section 71L(2)(c) the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person ought reasonably to have known of the relevant matters, whereas under the noble Lord’s amendment the burden of proof—admittedly to the lower standard, on the balance of probabilities—is on the defendant. The amendment is inconsistent with what is left in the new government amendments and is actually less favourable to the defendant.