DannyJP wrote:Somewhere in the back of my mind is something about "no insurance" being a rare instance with a reverse burden of proof. You have to prove you were insured. Perhaps someone can confirm? Again the standard the defendant has reach is that they were probably insured.
Proof of insurance for many years might convince a bench even if there was no data for 1997..
The prosecution first has to prove you were in a situation where you required insurance, E.G. driving a car on a public road. Once that is proven the burden is on the driver to either prove he was insured or that he did not require insurance. In the OP's case I would be tempted to require the prosecution to prove the identity of the alleged driver, perhaps by way of video ID parade by the officer alleging the driving evidence.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."