"It's commonly asserted that In English law an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that before convicting him a court or jury must be 'sure' of his guilt. But that is by no means always true, despite the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998
In many cases, an accused may be required to prove his innocence and may thus be convicted even where the court or jury is left uncertain of his guilt . Even where there is no such reversal of the burden of proof, juries may in practice convict on the subjective basis that they simply prefer the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses to that of the accused or his witnesses"
Discuss this assertion with reference to the law governing the burden and standard of proof in criminal cases, and to the presumption if innocence under European Convention On Human Rights Article 6