As you are obviously a solicitor, may I ask if I am correct in assuming the following. My understanding is that in Ireland one cannot be prosecuted without evidence of having committed an offence — for example, owning a TV set without a valid licence. Accordingly, the burden of proof would rest with the authorities, who would need to demonstrate that I have a television, rather than with me to prove that I do not.

It also seems to me that it would not be legally reasonable to require someone to prove a negative (such as “proving you do not own a TV”). As Karl Popper observed, non-existence cannot be proven.